On 02/06/2022 08:19, John C Klensin wrote:
--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.
How about
<list-name>-owner
making it clear in future to those who take on that responsibility that
that is part of their responsibility?
Tom Petch
...
I think I've covered your other comments in earlier messages
(sorry, busy day and reading most-recent-first).
best,
john
.
