--On Thursday, June 2, 2022 11:26 +1200 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. When I've been the mailman admin for such lists, > fortunately I've never had to deal with untoward messages, but > I'd say that it would clearly have been my job to do so. Also, > there's always an AD who authorised each list (or their > predecessor did so), so there's a chain of responsibility. Except that the authorizing AD is generally not identified on the mailing list page for non-WG mailing lists. Moreover, ADs change while mailing lists go on. When ADs change, we generally see an announcement of which new ADs is taking over which WGs (and that information is available on the WG pages in any event). I do not recall ever seeing such an announcement about transfer of responsibility for mailing lists. So, if there is a chain of responsibility that leads in the direction of an authorizing AD, it is a rather weak one. > All our policies do apply to non-WG mailing lists, according to > https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/nonwglist-guidelines/ which > cites > the Note Well. In particular the code of conduct and > anti-harassment BCPs apply. Again, I took that as given. > 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). Yes, but meaningful only of those administrators can be identified. Many of the things that have been said about the code of conduct and anti-harassment policies identify the importance of being able to handle apparent violations in a quiet and confidential fashion, avoiding causing public embarrassment to someone whose behavior we would like to see corrected rather than publicly calling them out. But to do that, the administrators should be identified (if only so that an offended party knows who they are contacting and that the contacts are not part of the problem). Even if a role address were acceptable, it should be clear who receives that address, whether it is publicly archived, etc. >... I think I've covered your other comments in earlier messages (sorry, busy day and reading most-recent-first). best, john
