Comment by dwaite

No, because in this hypothetical you have some authority to discipline that someone. That's what's going on here: DJB is calling out people in the IETF leadership -- people who can dole out posting privileges bans and what not. DJB is most likely going to skirt the line and not go over it, which is what's really tricky here, but the IESG could say they've had enough and discipline him. The trouble is that the underlying controversy does need to be addressed, so the IESG doesn't have completely free hand -- they can end up with a PR problem on their hands.

> So all someone who is being abusive has to do to force me to be stand there and be abused by them is to call me corrupt?

In this example, rectifying concerns is your job, so yes, you have to do it, even if 1 of the 7 parties who hold the concern is a jerk*. Officials can't dispense with rules and procedure just because their feelings are hurt.

If you are actually corrupt**, it isn't abuse. If you aren't, it still isn't abuse. Even if it is abuse, and you deal with it sanctions, you must still rectify the substance of the concerns upheld by 6 other parties.

* 1/7 would be a pretty desirable jerk/total ratio, in my experience

** (and officially behaving differently based on personal animus makes one so)