Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello,
At 08:52 AM 19-10-2021, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'IETF Discussion List Charter'
  <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2021-11-23. Exceptionally, comments may

One of the points in the existing IETF mailing list Charter (please see RFC 3005) is:

  "As this is the most general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude
  is allowed."

The sentence appears only in the Abstract of draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06. It is not clear whether considerable latitude will still be allowed going forward.

I have been on both sides of the debate about censorship over the years. Views about censorship are influenced about the person's background. Some people might favour giving some latitude to the person expressing a concern while other people might prefer to have the person censored because he/she is generating "noise". My reading of Version 6 of the draft is that it can be used to remove that "noise".

Section of the draft states that a sergeant-at-arms is appointed by a deliberative body. There is a sentence after that which states that the officer is appointed by the IETF Chair. That is not aligned with the definition.

A sergeant-at-arms usually have a military or law enforcement background. The officer works under the direction of the Speaker of the House. Does the officer work under the authority of the IETF Chair? If that is the case, would the IETF Chair be accountable for a decision of the officer?

if I am not mistaken, the IETF mailing list is no longer viewed as representative of the "community". Stating that the "SAA" as "a self-moderation function on the community, by the community" is, in my opinion, misleading.

As a nit, the Anti-Harassment Policy is formalized in RFC 7776.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy



--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux