Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Decorum on the DMARC WG list and BCP 94

From: Seth Blank <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 16:21:18 -0800

Working Group colleagues,

Discussion on this list is increasingly out of scope and process,
unproductive, and antagonistic. This behavior undermines the chartered work
of this group and will not be tolerated. We expect and require more civil
discourse from our participants, and remind everyone that disciplining
others is the purview of the chairs.

The current phase of work of our charter (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dmarc/) is to deliver a
standards track DMARC document based upon operational feedback. We are not
relitigating SPF, DKIM, DMARC, or ARC, adding new functionality, or
rehashing other IETF documents or processes.

When we kicked off DMARC bis, Alexey outlined a clear process:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/rBWzfzDa_tOhaVdxFzUBYVi46QI/

Only tickets opened by the Chairs or a document editor to the list are in
scope for working group discussion. Everything else should result in the
creation of a ticket to be discussed later, or off-list discussion. The
Chairs re-affirm that all tickets will be brought to the list.

To be clear: Before you hit “send” on an email to this list, make sure it
is on topic for an open ticket and is not likely to escalate tensions.
Otherwise, delete the message or start a private conversation that is not
on the list.

>From here on out, due to the counter-productive nature of current list
discourse, off topic or antagonistic discussions will be given a single
public warning, per BCP 94 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp94), which
implies that further violations will result in a 30 day suspension for the
participant. The ADs have been consulted, and everyone should consider
themselves warned.

Finally, several members of this working group seem to be very effective at
antagonizing each other. If a thread is spiralling, and a BCP 94 warning is
given and not heeded, all active participants in the thread after the
warning has been issued will be suspended, even if it’s to tell others to
respect the warning.

Now, let’s get back to our chartered work at hand and open tickets.

Seth, Tim, and Alexey, as Chairs

-- 

*Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies
*e:* [email-masked]
*p:* 415.273.8818

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 19:30:47 -0500

All

If you feel a need to be heard, that is also what the chairs are here for.

thanks
tim

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:21 PM Seth Blank <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Finally, several members of this working group seem to be very effective
> at antagonizing each other. If a thread is spiralling, and a BCP 94 warning
> is given and not heeded, all active participants in the thread after the

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 18:14:03 -0800

On 1/6/2021 4:21 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> and is not likely to escalate tensions. 

Seth,

Sorry, but please provide guidelines for how anyone is supposed to 
evaluate their draft posting, in that regard?

And please do it with respect to the current list rather than in 
abstract and generic terms.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
[email-masked]
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 18:37:43 -0800

On 1/6/21 4:21 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> unproductive, and antagonistic. This behavior undermines the chartered 
> work of this group and will not be tolerated. We expect and require 
> more civil discourse from our participants, and remind everyone that 
> disciplining others is the purview of the chairs.

I completely recommend everybody read and understand this paper. It 
doesn't address every answer to every question, but it does allow us to 
be much more data driven rather than uninformed conjecture. It's fine to 
dispute its conclusions, but it is not fine to dispute it to just 
dismiss it out of hand based on feelings or bias. It really gave me some 
grounding from the gut feelings which doesn't confirm much of anything. 
DKIM and DMARC need to more data and much less conjecture.

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity18/sec18-hu.pdf

Mike

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 23:47:00 -0500

Dave

You should have a pretty good idea based on these arguments over the past
few months to have a sense of how responses will be received. Take a step
back and take a second read.

This goes for all. Folks have very specific views of how they think mail
should work in regards to DMARC/DKIM/SPF/ARC/etc and instead of discounting
the discussion because the two views aren't identical, try to be a bit
open minded.

Tim

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 20:52:00 -0800

On 1/6/2021 8:47 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> You should have a pretty good idea based on these arguments over the 
> past few months to have a sense of how responses will be received. 
> Take a step back and take a second read.
>
> This goes for all. Folks have very specific views of how they think 
> mail should work

Tim,

This has nothing to do with differences in opinion.  It has to do with 
his persistent inability to conduct civil discourse in the face of 
disagreement.

Disagreement is fine.  Abuse is not.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
[email-masked]
408.329.0791

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 00:05:30 -0500

Dave

I agree.  But it seems one person's civil discourse is another person's
abuse.

Perhaps we can start from the position that nobody is attempting to insult
or abuse one another.
I don't believe anyone here consciously wants to be abusive to anyone else.
I have been accused of being an optimist.

tim

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:52 PM Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> should work
> This has nothing to do with differences in opinion.  It has to do with his
> persistent inability to conduct civil discourse in the face of disagreement.
>
> Dave [email-masked]
> 408.329.0791
>
> American Red [email-masked]
>
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 09:38:10 -0500

Supporting what Tim said, and expanding a bit (and, yes, it's general,
not specific): If we all do our best to stick to the technical issues
and to keep our tone neutral, then it's easier for the chairs to
respond appropriately to cases of inability to conduct civil
discourse, and to target that response appropriately.  Best efforts to
understand each other, to respond to the points, and to avoid
implications that anyone's concerns are trivial will make it possible
for the chairs to manage the discussion and to take appropriate action
when they have to.  If you think something's been hashed out enough
and that further discussion along the same line isn't useful, don't
say that publicly: let the chairs know what you think, and let them
handle it from there.

Barry

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:52 PM Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> You should have a pretty good idea based on these arguments over the past few months to have a sense of how responses will be received. Take a step back and take a second read.
>
> This goes for all. Folks have very specific views of how they think mail should work
>
>
> Tim,
>
> This has nothing to do with differences in opinion.  It has to do with his persistent inability to conduct civil discourse in the face of disagreement.
>

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:47:36 -0800

PS: what brought this all up was me pointing to a report which 
contradicted his claim, and he nastily snarled about whether I had read 
it. he constantly gets away with that kind of shit and never suffers any 
consequences. never. yes, i've been told he's been tut-tut'd in private, 
but it never changes his behavior. get rid of him if you want to make 
progress. he's poison, and i'm not the only one who feels that way.

Mike

On 1/7/21 6:38 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:57:46 -0800

On 1/7/2021 6:47 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> contradicted his claim,

It didn't.

> and he nastily snarled about whether I had read it. 

There is a pleasant way to snarl?

In any event, please document specifics, that qualify as 'snarling', 
since I've no idea what you are referring to.

> he constantly gets away with that kind of shit and never suffers any 

I haven't been.

Might be interesting to see the exact text that claims otherwise.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
[email-masked]
408.329.0791

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:58:51 -0800

oh, shit. that was not intended to be public. apologies to all. please 
disregard.

Mike