[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Censure of Mr. Simpson

I find this entire debate to be a *personal* attack on Bill Simpson, and not 
an attack on his work based on its technical merits. This is simply 
unacceptable. I urge everybody involved to calm down and re-evaluate their 
positions.

I have stayed silent so far, but I think it is time I spoke up. Remember that 
we are primarily a *technical* group (and one in a very important area), and 
we cannot allow technical work to be hindered by personal animosity. 
Furthermore, whatever Mr. Simpson's failings may be (and I am not necessarily 
implying there are any), the behavior of a segment of this working group has 
far exceeded what would be considered acceptable, polite, and civilized. 
Name-calling and ad hominem attacks have no place here, and some people seem 
to have fogotten that. 
Besides, summarily rejecting someone's work because of that someone's alleged 
personality traits is, to say the least, detrimental to the progress of the 
group as a whole.

Mr. Nessett's mail is what prompted my involvement in this thread, so let me 
comment on a few points:

> [ Dan Nesset's message of "Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:13:53 PST."      <199602271613.IAA18839@elrond.Eng.Sun.COM> ]

> To the members of the IPSEC working group,
> 
> I am no longer active in this group, having moved on to other duties. However,
> based on prior interactions with Mr. Simpson, I fully support the move by
> Paul Lambert to attempt to bring order into the working group proceedings.

So you are admitting that you do not know the particulars of this case, and 
that your reasons for wanting Mr. Simpson silenced are personal, not based on 
the technical merits of his work. Wonderful!

> As evidence I hereby make public a post Mr. Simpson sent to me in regards
> to in-band keying. I have retained a record of the prior email on this

Maybe my mailer ate it, but there is no date on that message. How recent is 
it? If it upset you so much, why didn't you bring it to the immediate 
attention of the group? Elementary good manners dictate that you do not make 
public a private piece of email without the author's consent. Is *your* proper 
behavior a function of other people's behavior? And in any case, I don't see a 
PGP (or other) signature. For all we know, you fabricated this.

> topic, which I believe shows Mr. Simpson had no reason to adopt an insulting
> and scurrilous writing style. 

I read the piece of mail. I cannot tell from it whether Mr. Simpson had a 
reason to adopt what you are calling "insulting and scurrilous." What I see is 
that you are making public a private piece of e-mail, an act which I (and many 
others, for that matter) consider unethical.


>                               It is interesting that Mr. Simpson's defender
> in this controversy is Mr. Metzger.

Your point being? You seem to be implying that there is something wrong about 
being defended by Mr. Metzger. Whatever your personal animosity towards Mr. 
Metzger may be, the fact that he is defending Mr. Simpson does not ipso facto 
imply that the defense should be considered invalid. 

> 
> Dan Nessett
> 

/ji
Follow-Ups: References: