What I discovered is that we have occasionally had these outbursts pretty much all along,
I mostly do like that we are not so tolerant, but I don't like how we resolve these sorts of PR actions. The openness we like engenders humiliation of the individual involved. This began with sergeants-at-arms and seemingly has gotten (in my opinion) worse. In any other standards organization, the matter would be handled a lot more quietly.
For what it's worth, the SAA team has a formal policy of handling
matters of "uncivil commentary and disruptive behavior" off-list
unless and until the poster persists in their behavior. See
<https://github.com/ietf/Moderators/tree/main/email-templates>.
Subsequent actions are publicly announced, because they carry at
least nominal consequences for the people being disruptive, and
because the community has historically demanded a radical amount
of transparency when anything like that happens.
I would much rather that we redid BCP 83 to reflect this, that the matter fall to the IETF chair to resolve, and that that person should have some freedom of action, so long as it proposed and reported to the IESG. This can result in better outcomes and can be effected more quickly. While there is a risk of abuse of power, that risk is mitigated by having a handful of people with different perspectives review the proposed action.
That lack of openness is actually a benefit. When matters are dealt with quietly and decisively, they can happen faster. For instance, when I was chairing a calendaring working group, there was one participant who had a tendency to be disruptive. In consultation with the AD, we agreed that I would moderate his participation for some period of time, and reject posts I felt were offensive, a copy of which would go to the AD when such a decision was made. He was made aware of his right to appeal. Not a single message needed to be moderated, and he contributed as a productive member of the group.
Also, IMHO there are benefits to the community in not having these debates out in the open. We're here to develop technical standards and guidance, not to debate people's behavior. Also, these actions can happen with more alacrity.
So I would prefer to reopen BCP 83 along the above lines. I'd propose a mailing list if others are interested.
As your anecdote demonstrates, these kinds tools are already
entirely within the purview of WG chairs (and their analogs for
other mailing lists). The introduction to BCP 83 explicitly calls
out that actions of this sort have historically been undertaken,
and does nothing to remove permission for them to continue to be
applied to this day. What you did for your calendaring group
worked, and there's nothing procedural stopping it from being
repeated everywhere and often. Perhaps the reason it doesn't
happen more frequently is a matter of training of chairs, or
tooling for our mailing lists. Perhaps we've created a culture
where chairs are hesitant to act decisively when people become
disruptive (and having been, on several occasions, privately
forwarded the vile off-list abuse that chairs get when they try,
this carries a fair degree of plausibility). Maybe they don't
think it's in their power to do so. In any case, I don't believe
the issue here is formal permission to act; what's at issue is the
infrequency of doing so. If we get to the root cause of that
shortcoming and take meaningful steps to change it -- whatever
"it" is -- maybe things start getting better. That might take the
form of an amendment to BCP 83; but your experience shows that
doing so isn't actually necessary, and I have fairly strong doubts
that it would be sufficient.
/a
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
