Dear Soatok, The potentially unwarned violations were public, so everyone already knows who should have been warned/moderated.
Receiving a number doesn’t expose anything new, other than serving as an authentication/verification mechanism. By learning the number of private warnings issued, participants will know whether or not moderation was applied consistently. Sincerely, Andrew P.S.: With the exception of the misguided position on Solo vs Hybrid, I love your blog. :-) > On Jul 7, 2026, at 11:22 AM, Soatok Dreamseeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> Dear Deb, >>>> >>>>> On Jul 7, 2026, at 8:55 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
