Hi Ben,
At 10:42 AM 14-08-2020, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> 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
The ietf@ list is a reflection of Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc.
- rate-limit all posters
That is technically possible. RFC 6729 was written for this mailing
list. However, it was never implemented.
- create a new role specifically tasked with deescalation and
consensus-building
The following is a definition of a word: "If you say that someone is
[removed], you mean that they are not easily upset by criticism or
unpleasantness." RFC 7154 was rewritten to address the
"unpleasantness" part. The new role option was tested previously:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bozkj693bayoU_tj3aH27_dmje0/
- your idea here
- One of the difficulties of having to disclose affiliation is that it
encourages the person to consider whether they would have sent that
content in their workplace. Such a practice would allow a reasonable
person to assess whether the discussion is a "friends and family" affair.
- This venue is not the ideal venue for debate. It is not the venue for
announcements as there is a list which has been set for that purpose. It
is not the venue to solicit reviews on a draft. It is not a venue to
discuss an ongoing appeal.
- The primary purpose of the list is for last call comments. Directorate
reviews should be sent to the relevant Area mailing list. Comments to
disagree with or to encourage other subscribers to rebel against the head
of the Area should sent to the Area mailing list.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
