RFC 3005 says plainly:
"""
Inappropriate postings include: ... Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms
appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person,
or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate
"""
Given the level of unprofessional discourse in the muted conversation, muting the entire topic seems like an entirely appropriate recourse.
Actually no. 3005 has at least two paths - abusive people and
off-topic conversations. The former is requires a specific
person's postings to be identified and PR actions may be the
appropriate response for those postings. The latter is for things
like "We should all go to RSA because...." and those are thread
bans - generally without PR threats.
In my long (Meeting 1 on) experience with the IETF, I've never
seen a chair ban a discussion that didn't fall in the second
category. I would have had no problem (or not much of a problem)
with the SAA identifying a specific poster and a specific post
that fell into the "Unprofessional commentary" category and giving
them a warning. That - to be very clear here - is NOT what
happened here.
The chair may persuade or it may beg for cession of discussion on a topic. It may not order, nor may the chair use the mechanism of 3005 to impose its will on a topic (vs a person). 3005 does not give the chair that authority, nor should we ever.
We've gone through probably dozens of these flare ups where the "leadership" says something controversial, and the "membership" pushes back. Once upon a time that resulted in the entire leadership structure being rebuilt into something new. Over time the discussion completes - either in an agreement, or due to exhaustion. This case is no different. How I wish that the IESG and the IAB and the Chair would stick to technical subjects and avoid proposing/directing politico-social changes.
I'm going to try and avoid commenting further here. If you really feel you require a response though I'll provide it grudgingly.
Later, Mike
--Richard
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 4:26 PM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/13/2020 3:48 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> At least there seems to be sufficient +1 from distinguished community
> members such as current or past IAB, IESG members, IAB Liaison, IETF ISOC
> appointee, IRTF and NomCom chair to hope that the action taken was rightfully
> within the privilege of IETF chair according to the rules.
Mike StJohns, Past IAB, Past Nomcom Chair
Scott Bradner, Past IAB, Past Area Director
Randy Bush, Past Area Director
Charlie Perkins, Past IAB
(sorry if I've missed other roles...)
So what's your point?
In any event, my opinion is that this action was NOT taken "rightfully
within the privilege of the IETF chair according to the rules", but I'm
withholding further judgement until the Chair responds to my request to
clarify which part of 3005 they believe applies and grants authority for
a mass PR threat.
>
> If this step was ultimately determined (by whom... ?) not to be within
> the privilege of IETF chair then i am bit worried about what i would
> have to think about all those +1.
I'm not sure why. Everyone has opinions. Some are more useful than
others, and each of us will have an opinion on that topic as well.
Later, Mike
