--On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 16:48 -0400 Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Generally speaking we do a document update after a last call > to address all comments, either by correcting the problem > identified in the comment, or by pointing out why the problem > is not applicable. Nobody is asking you to "support" the last > call. The point of the last call is not for you to support > it—it's for you to raise substantive objections, which I > believe you have done. So I don't think you need to do > anything more here—the only sense in which it matters > whether you express support for this action or not is that it > might make the IESG feel like they haven't gone beyond the > pale. The IETF rather famously does not vote. So what we > should hope for is that the IESG follows the consensus process > properly, and that the input you have given them results in a > post-last-call clarification. > > But you know all this. :) Indeed I do. But, mapped into the above way of looking at things (which I consider entirely reasonable), the Last Call request from the IETF asked for feedback on the proposed action (not quite, as you suggest above, a document to be updated). In particular, quoting without much context from the IETF Chair's Last Call announcement, '...plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action' and 'Comments should be limited to the criteria described in BCP 83, notably on whether the individual in question has engaged in postings that are "unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject" in a manner disruptive enough to warrant this action.' Now, I (and I believe others) have suggested that we support the action (an instance of a "final comment") but that we have deep misgivings about some of the reasons and reasoning in the Last Call announcement, particularly as they relate to BCP 83 and its intent (another part of that "final comment"). I have tried to avoid getting drawn into the discussion of whether it is appropriate to apply today's standards for professional conduct --including both very narrow and very broad interpretations of what those standards are-- to an almost 19-year-old document that used the term "unprofessional commentary" (presumably as the term was understood then), partially because others have explored those issues extensively. However, again because there is no document of the variety you refer to above, I think it is entirely reasonable to ask the IESG how they intend to handle the commentary. One possible answer is that they will simply count up comments that can reasonably be interpreted as "do it" and ones can can, equally reasonably, be interpreted as "don't do it", and then, if the rough consensus favors the former, put out some sort of action notice that basically reprises the Last Call announcement, disregarding all comments that did not conform to a narrow interpretation of the "should be limited" request above (or queuing those comments for a later discussion of BCP 83 itself). IMO, that answer would be entirely plausible, especially if my guess that at least some IESG members would prefer to be spending (or consider it more important to spend) their time in other ways is correct. Or they could decide their responsibility includes doing a careful, post-Last-Call, rewrite of the statement of justification, treating it more like a document as you suggest above, and possibly even getting a quick community review of the revised version (a variation of the debates a few months ago about how much it is appropriate to do in AUTH48 versus going back to WGs and/or LC probably applies to that process). If they intend the first, then my position is that the path by which we have gotten here is sufficiently flawed that Dan should asked once again to cut back on the behavior the community finds obnoxious and disruptive, warned that the next invocation of BCP 83 (if needed) will almost certainly be more definitive, but otherwise let off the hook this time. If the second, I'm happy about that more nuanced approach. So, IMO, the question is reasonable and should be answered precisely because this is not normal document processing. Speaking only for myself, I'd care far less about this (and would have tuned the discussion out) if we were processing BCP 83 PR-actions more frequently, perhaps a couple of times a year. Fortunately, the vast majority of participants in the IETF are either sufficiently well-behaved or respond well enough to counseling and advice that many ADs have served out their terms without having to deal with one. The bad news is that means that each one sets precedents, including precedents about how the language of RFC 3683 is interpreted, that will likely be looked to for guidance the next time around. And that, at least IMO, means that we need to be very clear, not just about what actions we are taking but about why we are taking them. best, john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
