On 03/06/2022 15:24, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 3 Jun 2022, at 6:30, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2022-6-3, at 13:38, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2022-06-03, at 09:19, Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They can always contact any AD, the IESG as a whole, or the IETF Chair.
(One problem with such a broad recommendation is that a newcomer will
have no way to know who in the IETF organization colludes with whom.
We may think it is a job requirement for an AD to be able to act like
an ombudsman, but how does the newcomer know that.)
which is why there is an ombudsteam?
(Speaking without hats)
Let's be clear about the division of labor here: RFC 7776 anticipates
that common disruptive behavior on a WG mailing list is handled by the
chair of the WG, and then escalated to the AD, IESG, etc. as needed. The
ombudsteam process is normally reserved for the kinds of harassment that
can't be dealt with that way. While the ombudsteam has been completely
open to advising people (both participants and chairs) on cases of
straightforward misbehavior (and in fact recently was asked to speak at
a WG meeting in order to deal with such behavior), I would personally
not be too keen on the default position for every concern to be brought
to the ombudsteam; that's a recipe for the ombudsteam to become the
good-behavior-enforcement-body in the IETF, which IMO would be a very
bad thing (let alone against what RFC 7776 says). The default should
always be to bring it to the person(s) leading the discussion, which in
the case of WGs is the chair(s).
For non-WG mailing lists, there is an IESG statement:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/disruptive-posting/.
It's pretty clear that for non-WG lists, the administrator deals with
disruptive posters. But I just happen to know about that IESG statement
because Iwas on the IAB when an appeal caused that statement to be
written. A newcomer probably would not know that non-WG list
administrators are expected to deal with disruptions. More importantly,
as John and others have said, finding the identify the list
administrator is not trivial. Somewhere, in an easy to find spot, anyone
should be able to discover the procedures for dealing with disruptive
behavior and the names of the humans who handle it.
A new non-WG list was announced yesterday including the text 'For
additional information, contact the list administrators' with no
indication who they might be or anywhere where they might be identified.
Yes, administrators are elusive.
Tom Petch
pr
