I certainly understand this position, but I don't agree with it.
As noted in my previous email, our moderation mechanisms are so ineffective
(and don't really touch personal email) that this policy would require leaders
to subject themselves to large amounts of personal abuse. I personally have
not experienced this, but I have been somewhat privy to what some others
receive, and I do not believe that that should be the price of being willing
to take on what is, after all, a service role.
-Ekr
On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 10:29 AM Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When I was / am in leadership roles, I consider that I am not permitted
to block email from any IETF participants. (Having said that, it is not
written down and other people may have different understandings.)
Yours,
Joel
On 10/2/2022 12:59 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Sunday, 02 October, 2022 14:31 +1100 Lloyd W
> <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> On 2 Oct 2022, at 00:57, Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fully agree. I have a list of people I mute, and that works
>>> for me.
>> Maybe the IESG, IAB, wg chairs and other responsible people
>> should compare notes on who they're each muting and filtering
>> - and why.
> Lloyd, I suggest that, if that group of people, but especially
> the IESG, start muting those whose messages they don't like
> --for any reason-- we go rapidly down the slippery slope toward
> having no opinions count that don't agree with the preferences
> of those in "the leadership". There may well be extreme cases,
> but that is what all of the other mechanisms that have been
> discussed, ultimately leading up to BCP 83, are about.
> Otherwise and independent of the wishes of the allegedly
> problematic author, the rest of us need to have the right to
> presume that the IESG (in particular) is hearing the voices of
> everyone in the community who might be expressing an opinion
> about a matter relevant to the IETF.
>
> If that sounds like I think a certain amount of abuse-tolerance
> goes with those roles when people volunteer for them _and_ that
> Nomcoms should consider observed low tolerance for criticism as
> disqualifying for AD (and some other) roles), well, yes.
>
> What decisions you, Rob, or myself might make about who or what
> to filter; messages we do or do not care to read carefully and
> in their entirity; etc., is another matter entirely: none of us
> have the responsibility to evaluate community consensus and do
> that fairly.
>
> And, again, if their perception is that the abuse and/or
> disruption level has gotten high enough that neither they nor
> anyone else should need to put up with more of it, that is what
> BCP 83 is about.
>
> best,
> john
>
>
>
>
>
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
