--On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 16:45 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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? > "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. In case it was not clear from a response sent a few minutes ago, I didn't intend "monitoring the appropriateness" the way you are reading it. Apologies for not being clear. I do expect that someone who is responsible for a list -- "owner", "administrator" or some other label -- will be at least reasonably familiar with what is going on and, if they notice seriously bad behavior, will step in without awaiting a complaint from someone else. But the more important point is the one you identified: there has to be some way to direct complaints to someone who has some reasonable ability to take corrective action and who is responsible for considering what is necessary or appropriate on a timely basis. I also think that person or person should be identifiable by people reading the list, not completely hidden behind a generic alias. > 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. I completely agree. But I see having some responsible party, with the authority and responsibility to either enforce or escalate as needed, as part of that community self-policing process, especially if abusive behavior occurs and is sufficiently intense (for lack of a better word) to cause other readers of the relevant list to decide not to engage with the offender lest they become the next targets. I also think we would be headed for trouble if those who might be called upon to deal with such issues were not, themselves, active members of the community. best, john
