Doesn't it somewhat defeat the point of warning individuals privately if they reveal the magnitude of that effort publicly?
On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 2:03 PM Andrew Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Deb. > > For point 1, I think everyone appreciates the clarification that good > faith participants have nothing to worry about. A blanket warning to > everyone does not make it obvious after all. > > For 2, I agree new participants should read the rules. I also believe > veterans, chairs and ADs should re-read the same. > > For 3, I appreciate that you are giving warnings to people in private. > That said, between July 6 and this morning, how many private warnings were > issued? > > Thanks again Deb. > > Sincerely, > Andrew > > > On Jul 7, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I will only engage on a couple of points: > > 1. Obviously those participants who have been contributing in good faith > have nothing to worry about. > > 2. The new participants should read the rules prior to posting, this > warning will help them understand what is expected. > > 3. If you were privately warned, others might have been as well. There > is literally no way for you to tell who has been warned privately and who > has not. > > Deb > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 1:14 PM Andrew Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Deb, >> >> On Jul 7, 2026, at 8:55 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This is a public warning to the entire TLS working group, in accordance >> with RFC 3934 Section 2 [0]. >> >> >> Thank you for the public reminder. I have a few observations. >> >> 1. Joseph Salowey issued me an off-list warning on July 6. He >> characterized my response to Paul Wouters as a "mischaracterization" of the >> IAB's findings. >> 2. I asked him to explain how a direct quote constitutes a >> mischaracterization. He could not. >> 3. He then pivoted the basis to "personal attack." I asked him to retract >> the warning as selectively applied and shared more clear counter examples. >> He did not respond. >> >> This public warning appeared only after Joseph could not justify why >> Paul, Uri, and Filippo received no warnings for disruptive and poor >> conduct. When pressed, he went silent. This message is the response to a >> question he could not answer. >> >> It appears the warning was never about conduct but instead, silence. >> >> When I asked for clarification, I was met with none. When I asked for >> retraction, I was met with none. Instead, the only response was this public >> escalation. >> >> Deb, to be clear, issuing a blanket warning to the entire list, including >> participants who have done nothing wrong, to avoid confronting the specific >> individuals who actually violated conduct norms is itself extremely poor >> moderation at best. It punishes everyone to avoid addressing the few, and, >> worse, chills legitimate participation across the board. >> >> Your bullet points map directly to Joseph's failed private warning. >> >> *not using people's words out of context >> >> >> I directly quoted the IAB's text: "did not accurately describe the >> record." That is not out of context. >> >> It's fact. >> >> *not participating in ad hominum attacks (veiled or unveiled) >> >> ^ (sic) >> >> Uri Blumenthal called PhD holders and full professors, and even the EU's >> Team Leader for Post-Quantum Cryptography, "crypto-wannabes who are now >> flooding this list." >> >> No warning. >> >> *not sending multiple responses in quick succession >> >> >> Participants on both sides have posted multiple messages throughout this >> WGLC. This standard has never previously been cited or enforced. Further, >> this warning starves debate during a WGLC; whether that's intentional or >> not doesn't matter. >> >> *no personal attacks, keep it professional >> >> >> Paul Wouters accused participants of "consensus manipulation," dismissed >> them as "social media influencers," and claimed "infinite" appeals. No >> warning. >> >> And here, specifically, let me be explicit about the contrast. >> >> 1. Paul, a former AD who the IAB found "did not accurately describe the >> record," accused participants of consensus manipulation on a public mailing >> list while the person he was attacking was gagged and unable to respond >> within a meaningful timeframe. >> >> 2. Uri, an MS holder at a defense-funded lab, called PhD holders and full >> professors "crypto-wannabes." >> >> 3. Filippo openly threatened to flood the vote with his social media >> followers. >> >> Any one of these should have resulted in a warning or moderation, yet >> none did. >> >> The only person who received a warning was the one who cited the IAB's >> own record to correct false statements. >> >> We expect people to be considerate and courteous on this list. >> >> If we see further violations, we will, at our discretion, put that person >> on a 30 day posting hold (where the chairs will review posts before >> publishing to the list). >> >> Deb Cooley >> Sec AD >> >> [0] While RFC9945 does obsolete RFC3934, Section 4 of RFC9945 states that >> “[u]ntil those procedures and criteria [of RFC9945] are established, all >> previous processes referenced in Section 1 [to include RFC3934] shall >> remain in effect. >> >> [1] >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cEUcbe27qZUBnapkDMExOmHC5I4/ >> >> >> I called these out, and instead of addressing them, you are now warning >> the entire list. >> >> You are the AD I identified in my pending IESG appeal as having prejudged >> the moderation issue by publicly stating on-list "I have seen no bias from >> my chairs" before any appeal was filed. The IESG has accepted that appeal. >> You are now issuing conduct warnings in the same dispute you were >> identified as compromised in. >> >> Further, you acknowledge RFC 9945 obsoletes RFC 3934 but rely on a >> transition clause to continue under the old authority. The protections of >> RFC 9945, specifically Section 1.2 stating that "viewpoints outside the >> rough consensus are not in and of themselves disruptive" and Section 6 >> warning against "the potential abuse of the moderation procedures by >> moderators, working group chairs, and potentially others that could lead to >> censorship of legitimate participation," exist precisely because the old >> authority was insufficient. >> >> To be clear, whether the transition clause permits the old procedures >> does not answer whether using them is consistent with the principles the >> IETF adopted four months ago. >> >> I am formally requesting that Joseph retract the off-list warning. I am >> formally requesting that conduct standards be applied uniformly regardless >> of position on this draft. And I am noting for the record that issuing a >> blanket warning to an entire working group to cover for selective >> enforcement is not a substitute for fair moderation. >> >> Finally, I reject this blanket warning on behalf of every participant in >> this working group who contributed in good faith and did nothing wrong. >> >> They do not deserve to be warned because you could not bring yourself to >> address the individuals who actually violated conduct norms. A warning >> directed at everyone is accountability directed at no one. >> >> I am requesting that the IESG consider this exchange as supplementary >> evidence in connection with my pending appeal accepted on or about July 2, >> 2026. >> >> Very firmly, >> Andrew >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
