Subject: RE: Question about list members masquerading as someone else

From: Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:52:32 -0400 (EDT)

I agree with everyone else. You shouldn't accuse someone of masquerading
as a 2nd identity. That's irrelevant. What difference does it make
if Fred creates an alternate identity, or if Fred recruits a friend
to restate his arguments?

And even if it is a fictitious identity
or a dog making the arguments, what matters is whether the arguments
have merit. If they can be refuted with clear arguments "here are
the two sides. Here are the pros and cons of each approach. We've
decided to do x because of ..." that's what should be done, regardless
of how many people are being vocal on either side. If the arguments
can't be refuted, then maybe they're right. But usually if a neutral
party writes it all up clearly and captures all the arguments on
both sides, it is clear whether A or B is better, or if it's a tossup,
then it can be justified that one will be chosen arbitrarily.

If either Fred or his alter-ego violate the spirit of the discussion
with personal attacks, then that's a different matter, of course.

Radia

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:16:03 -0400

Thanks to the list for the sage advice.  It appears what I have done 
already and what I felt had to be done is in line with what everyone else 
has seen.  There is no silver bullet.