Hi SM, On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 04:16:14PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote: > 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. When you say "it was never implemented", is that RFC 6729 itself, or specifically the "written for this mailing list" part? > >- 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/ I'm not entirely sure what value eliding the word in question is supposed to provide? I assume that it is "thick-skinned" but I am only guessing. I also don't understand the reference to RFC 7154 being a rewrite to address the "unpleasantness" part, as "unpleasant" does not appear in the diff from RFC 3184 to RFC 7154 (https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=rfc7154&url1=rfc3184), nor does the string "pleasant". Could you also clarify what you mean by "the new role option was tested previously"? The referened message indicates that there had been a proposal for a new "facilitator" role, but I did not see or recall any attempt to actually try out someone in that role. Perhaps you mean that it has been discussed previously but not attempted due to the results of that discussion? > >- 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. > The formatting suggests that these are intended to be "your idea here" proposals for what the IETF might do, but they mostly seem to be statements relevant for general background as opposed to proposed actions; am I missing something? Thanks, Ben
