[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Censure of Mr. Simpson
I have carbon copied this message to the IESG. The text of the message
which inspired it has been placed at the end.
"PALAMBER.US.ORACLE.COM" writes:
> In summary Mr. Simpson, your continued work on the Photuris specification,
> security transform specifications and your ongoing diatribes on this mailing
> list are detrimental to the progress of the IPSEC working group. I request
> that you abstain from making pronouncements on working group goals and group
> consensus. I suggest that you apologize to the working group and severely
> limit your postings to the IPSEC mailing list.
Paul;
I must respectfully say that although I am not always the biggest fan
of Bill's tone of voice, and although I agree that he is frequently
more belligerent than many of us would like,
1) I cannot accept the tone of your message
2) I am strongly offended, as a member of this working group, by your
choosing to air this matter in what I consider to be an extremely
offensive way, and in public, and
3) it is not in your power as a chairman of a working group to
censure or censor the members of the group in this manner, and it
is improper of you to assert that you can do so, and it is
furthermore improper for you to attempt to do so.
I have personally been the subject of your fiat reinterpretation of
the proper rules of procedure, as when you refused to allow the
initial drafts that were published (the contents of which were
ultimately adopted by the group) for the ipsec specification to be
called draft-ietf-ipsec, in direct contravention of the interpretation
of the rules for naming drafts that the POISED working group had
arrived at. That move was arbitrary and capricious, but I felt it was
unimportant so I chose not to pursue it, and the fact that the drafts
in question were ultimately adopted in spite of the active opposition
of the chair proved me right. You have demonstrated a tendancy towards
arbitrary and capricious actions as chair at other times, such as in
your unilateral changes to the group consensus of the Toronto IETF
meeting during the course of the San Jose IETF meeting, but again I
substantially ignored this as the Toronto proposal was adopted anyway,
in spite of your opposition, so I decided not to pursue the matter. I
will note, by the way, that it is rather unusual to have to constantly
get the work of the group around of the efforts of the chair to derail
it. This matter, however, cannot be left unpursued.
Regardless of who is fit to edit our drafts, and whether or not Bill
Simpson has been excessively beligerant, and whether Bill Simpson
should be the editor of the Photuris documents, it is not, as you
characterise it, the consensus of the working group that Bill Simpson
is deserving of the sort of unmitigated vitriol that you have showered
upon him, nor is it the consensus of the working group that one of our
most hard working members -- in spite of his rather spirited manner --
be censored by the chairman of the working group. Your statement, and
I quote:
> I request that you abstain from making pronouncements on working
> group goals and group consensus. I suggest that you [...] severely
> limit your postings to the IPSEC mailing list.
constitutes a totally unacceptable attempt to silence a working group
member.
As a chairman of a working group, you are, I am afraid, accountable to
a much higher standard of behavior, especially in your public
comportment, than any ordinary member of the working group would be.
In making statements of this form, you must exercise extreme care
because you are speaking as chair. The IETF process places substantial
powers in the hands of the chair of a working group to report
consensus and guide the actions of a working group, and as a result it
is necessary that the chair of a working group be observed to be fair,
diplomatic and worthy of the trust placed in him by the IETF
community. I believe that you have severely violated that trust and
ruptured all appearance of fairness.
You mention Robert's Rules of Order. I must note that IETF working
groups are not parliamentary bodies, do not vote, and are not subject
to the parliamentary law. We operate, as many bodies do, based on our
own customary procedure, developed over time via precedent and some
charters like RFC1602. Under our customs, which have, I will note, the
full force of a formal set of bylaws in most jurisdictions, your
behavior has been improper. If you disliked what Bill Simpson had to
say on the mailing lists, it was possible for you to ignore it. If you
disliked the document he was editing, you were free to propose a new
one, commission a new one, or write a new one. You have some power to
request that he await his turn to speak during in-person meetings and
use only a fair share of in-person time, but in general, you are not
permitted as chair to silence working group members. Your action in
requesting that Bill, in effect, remain silent, is wholely improper
under our precedents and our customary rules of procedure. You add
insult to injury by making your request in the form of an unmitigated
diatribe. You also violate our customs concerning due process.
According to that procedure, I must first bring this matter to the
attention of the area director, Jeff Schiller, and permit him to
examine the issue before formally requesting action on the part of the
IESG. However, please be clear that I fully intend to ask that
substantive action be taken in this matter. In my opinion, this sort
of behavior cannot be tolerated, and I fully intend to pursue this
matter to the furthest extent permitted under our rules of procedure.
Perry E. Metzger
Original message follows:
References: