Hi, My take on this is that lists hosted by the IETF should have the same expectations about conduct. The difference between w.g. and non-w.g. lists are impossible to detect externally from the list name. If someone wants to create an IETF hosted list, then they should be willing to abide by a set of IETF rules about conduct (for example, the anti-harassment policies). If someone wants to have a list that isn’t covered by the IETFs rules, there are a very large number of other places to have it hosted. Bob > On Jun 1, 2022, at 1:04 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi. I contemplated just sending this to the IESG but it may > need broader community discussion. > > As I think we all know, someone occasionally posts inappropriate > messages to an IETF-provided mailing list, sometimes attacking > the person who posted an earlier message to the list and not > their ideas. Sometimes those public attacks are followed by > private ones that might even be threatening. Of course, that > sort of behavior violates at least the intent of the code of > conduct and, under certain circumstances, the anti-harassment > policies. > > It is not clear what we can do about the off list attacks, but > we should not facilitate them and, where practical, should be > offering assistance to mitigate them. > > When such transactions involve this list (the main IETF > discussion one), there is a sergeant-at-arms team with whom > issues can be raised. When it is on a WG list, my understanding > is that WG Chairs are charged with ensuring good behavior. > However, it is not clear what should what the model is for > non-WG lists and who is accountable if bad behavior occurs and > is either very egregious or persists. My recollection (maybe > wrong) is that we used to identify the responsible parties for > such lists. Now, it seems that many such lists contain only a > footer that says the equivalent of: > > XXX list run by XXX-owner at ietf.org > > In the interest of transparency and accountability, shouldn't > the people involved in managing such a list be identified? If > they post to the lists they are "running", their names and email > addresses are exposed, so their participation and identities are > not secret, only their responsibilities. It is reasonable that > correspondence about the list go to a different address than > their ordinary one(s), but that does not require hiding their > names either. > > Would it be reasonable to replace the line/ template above with > something more like: > > XXX list maintained by Jane Jones and Joe Smith, contact > address XXX-owner@xxxxxxxx > > (I object to "run" for other reasons, but don't feel strongly > about it in this context if others prefer it.) > > 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? > > thanks, > john > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
