IMO the issue for each list/group making sure there is someone reading all messages and analysing the details. What is the status anti-abuse-system performance percentage of success per time?
I think there can be possibilities that IETF WG-chair/who-responsible-for abuse-solving is not following the group-conversation on his/her list/room to solve abuse situation on time.
Is IETF able to read all messages and analyse them quickly enough?
After I know the answer from management of the past performance, we can think to discuss public identifications of responsible persons. I am not sure if identification increases the system performance or decreases.
Best Wishes,
AB
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 10:05 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
