On 6/1/22 16:04, John C Klensin wrote:
Or is it the IETF's position that no one is actually responsible
for monitoring the appropriateness of content on non-WG lists or
accountable for doing, or not doing, that?
"Monitoring the appropriateness" seems like overkill, and it would seem
to mean that not only would there need to be a designated person or
people for every single IETF list, but also that said person or people
should be promptly reading every message in every such conversation.
I'd like to think that it's sufficient if there be a person or people
for each list to whom complaints can be directed, and who has some
limited power to take corrective action.
More broadly, I still believe that IETF works better if the community
can mostly police itself, and mostly set its own standards for behavior,
rather than expecting that there should always be some parental figure
to adjudicate every possible conflict. I realize that there are
limitations with community self-policing, including (quite importantly)
that communities can harbor and enforce prejudices against certain kinds
of individuals even without realizing that they're doing so. So
self-policing can never be entirely sufficient, but I believe it's a
necessary component. Because appointed individuals can also harbor and
enforce prejudices, with even less potential to correct them when they
run amok.
Keith
