Hi S. Moonesamy, On the SAA issue, I have responded more generally on a separate thread. But please see inline regarding a couple of your other comments. > -----Original Message----- > From: last-call <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of S Moonesamy > Sent: 20 October 2021 21:34 > To: last-call@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF > Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice > > 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". My interpretation is that the latitude is meant to the refer to the topics that may be discussed. But I regard the text in the abstract as just giving an overview and the "normative" text that defines what is/isn't allowed as being in section 2, and the parts of section 1 that apply to all mailing lists. Please see item (3) of the other email that I just sent proposing some specific text about how the moderation is done. Would that proposed text in that email be sufficient to address you concerns? Or do you think that further changes are warranted, and if you so, please can you propose concrete changes? > > 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. I'm always hopefully that we can get ietf@ back into a shape where more of the community regard it as holding useful discussion and decide to rejoin. But either way, one could argue that the meaning of community in this sense refers to those individuals who choose to be subscribed to the ietf@ mailing list. Regards, Rob > > 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 -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
