W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [Ietf-honest] Adding people to the honest IETF list

From: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:17:10 +0100
To: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, ietf-honest@lists.iadl.org, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090827011710.GA22431@tumbolia.org>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 02:44:24PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> Looks like the last edit to the moderators note was not saved. My apologies.

> In retrospect, I should have pointed out that most everyone doesn't want to be
> unsubscribed, and most everyone doesn't want dishonest people filtering the
> IETF email in the first place.

Please see my notes at:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Aug/0082.html

You lost the right to make this argument when you subscribed people by force.

> There was a consensus call: the the consensus was overwhelmingly against the
> PR-action. The ones who do want to silence me are a small group of dishonest
> people who continue to make whatever misrepresentations about facts or my
> views that are convenient for their purposes and have nothing to do with the
> truth. I don't really care to optimize my systems to please them; they are
> dishonest and are associated with dishonest people who really /are/ spammers.
> (www.iadl.org/whitehat/whitehat-story.html)
>
> It is worthwhile to point out that but for the dishonesty of the
> self-interested IESG and IAB members, the *-honest lists would be unnecessary.
> Whatever inconveniences that arise are the fault of the IESG.

This isn't about you, or your arguments about the IETF.

It is about you harvesting my email from an joint IETF/W3C post, and then being
responsible for sending me a bunch of unsolicited mail, and further refusing to
acknowledge that this is antisocial and unacceptable behaviour.

> Plainly, despite pretentions, Slater and company aren't really
> interested in the welfare of others: Slater steals resources from the
> W3C. Not only does the W3C have to store his unauthorized, unsolicited,
> off-topic messages which have nothing to do with W3C business and make
> it hard for people to review the W3C archives later, but the W3C has to
> keep providing bandwidth to the people who /read/ those messages. Its
> the theft that keeps on stealing. This is particularly obnoxious because
> the W3C is a non-profit, with limited bandwidth and disk resources.

Please see me notes at:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Aug/0082.html

Wherein I justify my use of the W3C resources.

> But Slater's behavior isn't unusual; most of my critics, particularly
> those who want to silence me, have been up to bad things and are usually
> spammers or scammers themselves. They want to silence me to prevent me
> from discrediting their schemes.  More recently, they've been engaging
> in a whisper campaign. Unsurprisingly, people keep me apprised.
> Sometimes people like Mans Nilsson just come right out and say it.
> Othertimes its more like this recent email:
>
>   I couldn't resist going over to them and asking "So what's the deal
>   with banning Dean Anderson?"  At first they the guy looked nervous,
>   and then kinda laughed, and told me a story about how you were
>   integral to a bunch of early internet technologies and decisions, and
>   then some time about 20 years ago you "just lost your mind."  I was
>   sorry to hear them say that, but I guess not surprised.  For what a
>   random stranger's opinion is worth, you don't come across as "having
>   lost your mind."  You come across as knowing exactly what you're
>   talking about, albeit with absolutely no patience for fools.
>
> There are a some obvious misrepresentations in Mr. Arkko's message. Of
> course, this is hardly unsurprising in some respects.

Stop using my complaint as a platform for your agenda pushing.

> First,
>
> > I can tell you that mere readers of this list are having impure
> > thoughts. Many of them sympathize Noah's thoughts.
>
> It seems to odd that Arkko is now a mind reader.

I guess he's learning from you:

  On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 02:44:24PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
  > In retrospect, I should have pointed out that most everyone doesn't want to be
  > unsubscribed, and most everyone doesn't want dishonest people filtering the
  > IETF email in the first place.

> Second,
>
> > Most of them are not reading the list at all or -- horror! -- use
> > filters to delete these posts automatically.
>
> Quite obviously, those people are either free to unsubscribe or are not
> bothered at all by the existance of this list.  And if it were true that
> no one read the list, there would be no need to try to disrupt it.

No amount of hand-waving will justify your opt-out mailing list.

> Third,
>
> > In a recent scientific survey with a sample size of one, these
> > improper practices had perfect correlation with subscribing someone
> > who had posted in ietf@ietf.org before.
>
> In fact, a recent survey (PR-Action) was conducted with a sample size of
> 17. 15 of which sided with me and were against the PR-Action while 2
> were for it.
> (http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/IESG/IESG-PR-discussion.html)

Irrelevant.

> Fourth,
>
> > I think it is time that you take swift action to clean this e-mail
> > list from ill-behaving subscribers. This allows you to retain this
> > forum for civilized discussion among the true believers. First, you
> > should remove people like Noah who dare to bring up list subscription
> > complaints. And everyone else who sends mail about non-IETF business
> > topics.
>
> Indeed, this is a civilized forum for discussion of important IETF
> business, and certain subscribers have been misbehaving with a non-IETF
> agenda. It appears obvious now who has been encouraging the off-topic
> and frivolous complaints, and why.  Swift action should indeed be taken,
> but it should be to clean up Internet goverance organizations.  I am
> sorry for treating those frivolous complaints with credulity. For the
> time being, I am moderating the list to stop abuse.
>
>               --Dean

You've not moderated me yet, but I wish you would.

> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> > [Moderators note:  Since July 2006, Jari Arkko has an IESG Member who
> > has dishonestly participated in and cooperated with a number of
> > scams on the IETF and public that are documented at
> > (http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch). Mr. Arkko's associates have been
> > found to discredited at (http://www.iadl.org). Mr. Arkko is aware
> > of the fraudulent consenus call documented at
> > (http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/IESG/IESG-PR-discussion.html). Mr.
> > Arkko is unmoved by the demands of justice, common decency, the IETF
> > rules, and the law. Mr. Arkko is aware that denying democratic
> > participation is in violation of the Hobbs Act, and is aware that
> > this has been used against a Teamster's Union after a mafia took
> > control of the Union and silenced the opposition, just like Mr.
> > Arkko and his cronies. Mr. Arkko knows that forming an interlocking chain
> > of control of several internet governance organizations is a violation
> > of Antitrust law, yet this has not stopped him from cooperating.  The
> > evidence shows that Mr. Arkko has no concern with the facts, nor any
> > concern with fair and honest internet governance, nor any concern for
> > the law.  Instead of performing his duty to enforce the IETF rules and
> > comply with the law, Mr Arkko continues to use his position to
> > disregard the law and divert sometimes patented standards to his cronies
> > while silencing and ny inconvenient critics of the apparently unlawful
> > conduct.  Mr. Arkko's sarcasm below should be read in this context.]
> >
> > Dean,
> >
> > > They have consented to communication on IETF business. This list isn't
> > > about any advancement of MY personal agenda. Rather, your messages now
> > > are YOUR personal agenda.  I've asked you to stop it nicely since your
> > > baseless claims against me have nothing to do with IETF business.
> > >
> >
> > I think it is time that you take swift action to clean this e-mail list
> > from ill-behaving subscribers. This allows you to retain this forum for
> > civilized discussion among the true believers. First, you should remove
> > people like Noah who dare to bring up list subscription complaints. And
> > everyone else who sends mail about non-IETF business topics.
> >
> > It's pretty nice weather here today, by the way, how about there? Dean,
> > what are your thoughts on the price of oil?
> >
> > Last but not least, I don't think you should restrict the big cleanup to
> > posters. I can tell you that mere readers of this list are having impure
> > thoughts. Many of them sympathize Noah's thoughts. Most of them are not
> > reading the list at all or -- horror! -- use filters to delete these
> > posts automatically. That is clearly inappropriate, because, as you and
> > I know, we should be discussing important IETF business. In a recent
> > scientific survey with a sample size of one, these improper practices
> > had perfect correlation with subscribing someone who had posted in
> > ietf@ietf.org before. The conclusion is inevitable: you need to get rid
> > of all of them. That is the only way.
> >
> > After doing this, you should also search for interested subscribers
> > through an opt-in model. If you feel that your posting rights situation
> > prevents you from doing that, I would be happy to forward a note to the
> > IETF list on your behalf.
> >
> > Thanks for keeping this list tidy,
> >
> > Jari
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-honest mailing list
> > Ietf-honest@lists.iadl.org
> > http://lists.iadl.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-honest
> >
> >
>

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 01:18:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:26 GMT