Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02-Jun-22 08:45, Keith Moore wrote:
>> 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?
> I suspect that the position is that there is, formally, no position.
I think that what John is saying is that the "appeal" path for non-WG
lists is unclear to the participants.
(I use "appeal" in quotes, because really, it's about to dispute,
anti-harassement and code of conduct process)
> So the missing link seems to be an IESG Statement that absent any other
> provision, the administrators of a non-WG list should fulfill the role
> described in RFC3934 (part of BCP24).
>> "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.
> Yes. Shouldn't anybody tagged as a list admin be doing that anyway?
You'd think so, but people sometimes forget which lists are theirs.
And I've noticed that some WG lists aren't even well monitored by the chairs.
(Yes, I complain)
>> enforce prejudices, with even less potential to correct them when they
>> run amok.
> Which, I believe, is exactly why the backstop mechanisms we have in place for
> WG list abuse should apply here too. I think John has identified that at
> the moment, we have no backstop.
Yes.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
