[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Censure of Mr. Simpson
In message <199602281605.IAA20108@elrond.Eng.Sun.COM>, Dan Nessett writes:
>
>I believe my post was significant evidence that I do know the particulars of
>this case. The censure of Mr. Simpson has nothing to do with the technical
>merits of his work. It addresses his unacceptible behavior in the conduct
>of IETF work.
>
Speaking for myself, the exerpt you sent didn't prove anything about your
knowledge of the case.
>Let me address your points in order. There was a date on the message, it was
>Wed Mar 15 06:25:01 1995. I brought it to the attention of the IESG at the
>time. If someone writes me a letter threating my life or the well being of my
>family, I have no obligation to keep it private. In the same vein, if
>someone is employing terrorist tactics to ensure his point of view prevails,
>I have no obligation to keep these tactics private. For all you know the
>complete record of this working group email list is fabricated. You don't
>even know if Dan Nessett sent this message.
>
Sending in public private communications without asking permission first sounds
like "terrorist" tactics to me.
>In regards to the ethics of divulging mail sent to me privately, see above.
>If you believe there are any circumstances in which the writing style of
>the message in question is excusable, then we have no basis for a continued
>exploration of this topic.
>
A lot can be said on this, but let's not open a can of worms.
>The point is that Mr. Metzger's defense of Mr. Simpson may be biased. The
>evidence for this is the statement by Mr. Simpson that "He's just trying to
>piggyback on our work."
>
Biased ? I guess cooperating with Mr. Simpson might make someone object to
another's views that it's impossible to work with him.
Again, this seems more like a personal attack than a well thought
action of a WG chair.
-Angelos
References: