On 10/3/22 10:04, John Scudder wrote:
Hi Keith,
On Oct 2, 2022, at 9:24 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a normal Last Call, anyone is free to object without significant
reprisal. In this case, anyone can see that by objecting they'd be
courting disfavor from those in power. That's not a consensus call at
all.
I’m curious as to what you think the right approach would have been, then. Let’s review. BCP 83 says:
A PR-action identifies one or more individuals, citing messages
posted by those individuals to an IETF mailing list, that appear to
be abusive of the consensus-driven process.
So, the initiation of the PR-Action requires that the IESG form some opinion as to the whether the cited messages “appear to be abusive of the consensus-driven process”.
“In the IESG’s opinion”, IMO, communicates two things. First, that the IESG has done its duty according to BCP 83 to weigh the facts presented and come to some opinion about them (“appear to be abusive”). Second, that the IESG acknowledges that this is an opinion only and doesn’t assert it as incontrovertible fact. Read the consensus call message again without those four words. Would it be better that way? Or might you object that the statement would then be implicitly presented as if a fact, rather than an opinion?
Beyond that, would you see it as other than disingenuous for the IESG to have posted a PR Action that took pains to avoid directly expressing any opinion? Given the requirements of BCP 83, how would that even be done? Would the consensus call use language like “the IESG has heard that people are saying”? Doesn’t the simple posting of the PR Action consensus call represent a de facto expression of opinion, regardless of the niceties of the language used?
Given that IESG has decided to try to remove some of Dan's posting
rights, clearly BCP 83 is the right procedure for doing so. Whether
trying to remove Dan's posting rights is actually helpful to IETF's
mission is a different question.
Having recently been prompted by this discussion to reread BCP 83, I
actually don't think it's a very wise way of dealing with things today.
The idea that we should make decisions by consensus, and the procedures
we use to determine consensus, have long been well-baked into IETF
culture, and BCP 83 just tries to apply that same practice to the
question of whether to revoke someone's posting rights. But the IETF
community was very different when MTR wrote that document, and it was
much more accepting of diverse input then than it is now. I don't
think the community would have supported marginalizing someone like Dan
then, and from my memory it was tolerant of far more difficult voices
than his. The demand for intolerance (which is exactly how I see it)
has grown considerably since then not only in IETF but in society in
general. I observe it but I struggle to understand why this is the case.
If I were trying to replace BCP 83 today, I'd place a much greater
emphasis on trying to address such perceived problems by facilitating
better communication, by listening more and accusing less, by more
constructively engaging with the person believed to be the problem.
There should be people tasked with trying to constructively mediate
between IESG and such individuals, rather than serving as IESG's cops
like the ombudsteam and SAAs/moderators have become. It's almost as if
there's a witch hunt mentality in IETF these days. I think that's a
huge part of the toxicity problem, and I don't think that problem can be
solved by a process document.
Keith
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
