On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:30:14AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote: > > On 8/14/2020 9:44 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Thanks Paul. Well, said. > > > > Despite the long history of the IETF discussion list being awful, I've > > felt an obligation to stay on it. However, it has now become so bad > > that I can longer do so. > > > > I would like to thank the IESG for creating the last call list so > > that it is still possible to participate in the business of the IETF > > without being part of this toxic environment. I'll see you there > > and in the WGs. > > There is something systemic here. We see that behavior too many times. I > was at the receiving end of similar abuses during the RFC-ED discussions > last year and I feel the pain for Alissa, but there are many more > examples. The IETF list functions as some kind of general assembly, but > without any rules of order. The loudest voices dominate the stream and > skew the consensus, which encourages a loudest-voice behavior and > discourages consensus building. > > The question is, what to do? The IETF way would seem to be to write up several drafts with various proposals and solicit comments. Options could include: - just shut it down - rate-limit all posters - create a new role specifically tasked with deescalation and consensus-building - your idea here -Ben
