Re: Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action ...

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 15 June 2024 05:18 UTC

Message-ID: <4e73573f-96e9-44a6-9a19-845e1046bf9d@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 17:18:11 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action ...
Content-Language: en-US
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
References: <171785763936.33553.13380053453419884540@ietfa.amsl.com> <905faa73-62c0-4bbf-91ad-72851aad373f@network-heretics.com> <cf029d2f-930f-9911-336b-855bd42e57d3@nostrum.com> <d9243563-86cd-484a-86e8-37199378895e@network-heretics.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d9243563-86cd-484a-86e8-37199378895e@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Message-ID-Hash: WVLFYXYDBV5S5XJ3KRYHOIODTWYZP4AX
CC: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Rk5zNgQ29ATVb1X_b68qCS48nGQ>

(Switching lists as we are off the Last Call topic)
On 15-Jun-24 16:49, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 6/15/24 00:30, Adam Roach wrote:
> 
>>
>> For avoidance of doubt: would it be fair to infer from the second half of your message (the portion below the dividing line) that you would decline to support /any/ PR-Action based on the process described by BCP 83?
> no.  I haven't tried to do such an evaluation, and I can think of at least hypothetical cases in which I'd support use of BCP 83, at least in an emergency.

A four-week Last Call can hardly be called an emergency solution. An emergency would surely be somebody sending, say, grossly illegal content. I think (and certainly hope) that people with the appropriate admin passwords would take immediate action on that, regardless of any BCPs.

> But I think we have enough experience with BCP 83 by now to see its considerable downsides,

I'd like to see an impartial summary of all PR-actions to date, to form an opinion about that.

> and I find much of the community's response to BCP 83 PR-actions (including this one) to be unprofessional and disruptive to IETF's purpose.

Disruptive, yes; ironically enough, this (the Last Call) part of the cure is worse than the illness.

Unprofessional? I'm not sure (with one or two exceptions).

> 
> More generally I don't think a "rough consensus" process similar to that we use to approve protocols, is an appropriate way to consider punitive actions.

It isn't intended to be "punitive". It's meant to protect the IETF. If it also changes the behaviour pattern of the individual concerned, that's a win too.

>    People can contribute to consensus to support a protocol for their own reasons; they don't need to supply any clear or precise justification, and I'd argue that that's a feature.  But when considering punitive actions it seems to encourage everyone in the self-appointed "jury" to come up with their own charges, their own evidence, their own rationale to support the punishment.   It's basically a witch trial, or a mob trial, in which all accusations (no matter how poorly founded) are considered to be valid without support, and there's peer pressure within the mob to start (metaphorically) throwing stones.

I really don't think that's right. In this particular case, people have been adding instances, and that was necessary since the IESG message really didn't establish a pattern. But it's a well-defined process with an end point.

    Brian

Re: Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action ... Brian E Carpenter
Re: Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action ... Keith Moore
Re: Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action ... Adam Roach
Re: Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action ... Keith Moore