Hi Mike, On the question of what outcome I am seeking: a working group environment in which participants do not send private messages telling other participants, repeatedly, that votes on “draconian moderation” refer to them specifically and to pressure them to stop engaging with the list. That is the whole of it. In my case, I know for a fact that this isn’t true, based on the volume of emails I received encouraging me to not leave the list when I was considering to do so last week, and for which I am grateful.
You are right that the chairs bear no formal responsibility for messages sent by other participants in private. I should have been clearer that the concern is about signaling, not causation. When chair communications frame a participant's conduct as extreme or excessive, that framing can provide cover, however unintentionally, for others to act on that sentiment in ways they might otherwise have reconsidered. Your observation that the relevant sentiment predated any vote is noted, and in fact very useful and illustrative context. If anything, it confirms that the climate was already primed before the language question arose, which is the more concerning reading, not the less. On your closing remark: I think it illustrates the point rather well. Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > On 23 Jul 2026, at 2:34 PM, Mike Shaver <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 7:28 AM Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I’d like to disclose that one potential negative impact of using extremely >> strong wording such as “draconian” is that I’m now receiving extremely >> aggressive and abusive emails off-list from some senior IETF participants >> who have repeatedly expressed their belief that this vote pertained to me >> personally, and indicates that (I quote) “the working group has clearly >> voted that they don't want to hear from [me].” > > In the most courteous way I can manage before tea, I submit that this > sentiment existed well before any vote occurred containing the toxic word > "draconian" (which we all know means that one has a breath weapon and > immunity to the relevant elemental damage). The senders of such messages are > entirely responsible for their own off-list expressions of opinion and they > should not be laid at the feet of the chairs even if a starkly prescriptivist > reading of constrained live-poll language offends your editorial > sensibilities. > > It is possibly ironic, but certainly non-productive, to continue an extended > fight about the dictionary definition of the word after you have been > directly and repeatedly informed that it was clear in the context of the > audience at which it was directed. It is unclear what outcome you're seeking > from it, to be frank. I hope that watching the video or otherwise gaining the > context of the moment provides you with some relief. > > I hope even more that you're able to find more constructive and collaborative > ways to communicate on the TLS list, because whatever intellectual > contributions you might offer are utterly eclipsed by the unwelcome volume > and tone. > > Mike
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
