On Oct 20, 2021, at 16:42, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > "As this is the most general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude > is allowed." Note I’m currently not on the list discussed, which I would argue is due to the “considerable latitude” allowed. > 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". I personally wish we could separate the content of the discussion from the method of discussion. I’d say considerable latitude about topics is fine, but with respect to the method of discussion and inclusivity, I would hope less latitude is granted. Probably better people than me have already considered this in more depth than me though, and I don’t have any insights to improve the text here or the list at last call. > 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? I do wish we would retire the term SAA. It’s unnecessarily militaristic (possibly due to English not being my native language) and seems like a silly workaround for avoiding the commonly used term “moderator”. Paul -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
