[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Censure of Mr. Simpson (longish)
In message <199602270304.TAA06978@mailsun2.us.oracle.com>, "PALAMBER.US.ORACLE.
COM" writes:
>
>As a chairman of an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) working group I
>find myself in the difficult position of interpreting consensus as a means to
>mediate the activities of our committee. So, as a chairman (one of two) of
>the IP Security (IPSEC) working group, I must inform you of the consensus of
>the committee regarding your participation in this working group and the
>status of your submittals to this committee. There is strong consensus in the
>
>IPSEC working group that your behavior in this committee is unacceptable.
Is there such consensus ? Excuse my doubts. Exactly *HOW* did you decide that
the WG felt that way ? It's been 2.5 months since the last IETF meeting, and
you've pretty much kept silent on this matter during this time. So either
you met a large percentage of the WG (again, excuse my doubts), you received
lots of protest mail (in which case i'd like to take a look at them, headers
and other ID stripped if necessary), you just kept silent so far (why ?), or
you just decided there is consensus.
>There is strong consensus that your ongoing diatribe on the mailing list is
>detrimental to the progress of the working group. You continue to ignore
>direct requests by the chairs to edit specifications that you have submitted,
>so none of documents submitted by you to IPSEC reflect the working group
>consensus.
>
I believe the matter of the SLs was/is under discussion ? In this matter at
least, my opinion is very much like Bill's; i also believe there are others
who want to discuss the issue, rather than let the chair(s) enforce a
decision (myself, i believe SLs should not concern us).
>Consensus does not belong to the individual with the loudest voice or the
>fastest typing fingers. You loudly declare group acceptance for documents
>that you submit, but offend, insult and ignore those that comment on these
>specifications. Your attempts to control the editing of working group
>specifications does not improve or expedite the creation of good technical
>documents, but can only be viewed as the self serving promotion of your own
>business interests and ego.
>
Offend ? Insult ?
I'll admit Bill is not the easiest person to persuade to do a change in a
draft he's editing, but more often that not he's accepted my (and at least
another person's) corrections/modifications.
I've also found your mail offensive and quite insulting; certainly not the
kind of mail i'd expect from a WG chair. The language is quite extreme, to say
the least.
>both individuals and the IETF with a lawsuit if you were "removed". To avoid
>using any text that you might have generated, the chairs of the IPSEC working
>group have encouraged Hillary Orman to become the editor for the IPSEC key
>exchange specification. Her excellent effort has resulted in the
>draft-ietf-ipsec-oakley-00.txt specification. This specification is intended
>to meet the working group direction for a "hybrid Differ-Hellman STS-like"
While i do believe Hillary is a very suitable editor, i STRONGLY (and i can't
possibly emphasize that) object to the way you remove Bill from the process.
>cryptographic mechanism. Your affiliation with the Photuris specification has
>resulted in a document that lacks clarity and group acceptance. I strongly
>encourage you to reexamine the "help" that you are giving to Mr. Karn.
>
That is for Phil to say.
>The "security transform" specifications in the IPSEC committee have also
>suffered from your "authorship". An editor, Jim Hughes, has been selected to
>edit working group specifications on the IPSEC security transforms. His first
>Internet Draft on this topic has been submitted and other transforms (IDEA,
>triple-DES, or others) will follow soon. I am confident that these documents
>will reflect the contributions and expert ice of the whole committee.
>
Would you care to be more specific on how the security transform specifications
have suffered ? The new draft is far from perfect (actually, i consider it
several steps backwards); nothing that can't be fixed, but....
>Your belligerent and disruptive behavior in the IPSEC working group is not the
>first case of your misbehavior in Internet working groups. At least three
>other working groups have had to censure your participation. You consistently
>insult and intimidate members of Internet committees and manipulate the IETF
>to promote your own interests over those of the working groups.
>
Care to back this statement on "promoting his own interests" ?
>The interaction of the IETF by electronic mail has created a unique form of
>committee interaction that replaces meeting halls with e-mail lists, votes
>with consensus and membership with subscription. Disruptive behavior in any
>forum is unacceptable and the IETF will be forced by your actions to
>investigate suitable disciplinary actions in our network community. If this
>were a "physical" meeting run by Robert's Rules of Order, we could vote to
>have you expelled from the meeting. As chairman, I wish that we could
>"banish" you from our list and I am confident that a very large majority of
>the IPSEC mailing list would approve.
>
WHAT ?!?
I'm not overly familiar with what a WG chair can do, but i'm fairly certain
this is one of the things he can't (or shouldn't).
>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.
>
Apologize for having a loud voice, ignoring the chair in favour of discussion
within the WG and filling our mailboxes ?
I'd like to hear what Ran has to say.
-Angelos
References: