--On Thursday, October 27, 2022 16:50 -0500 Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27 Oct 2022, at 15:47, John C Klensin wrote: > >> --On Thursday, October 27, 2022 10:39 -0500 Pete Resnick >> <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Revocation of posting rights does not require that we never >>> see posts from this person. >> >> Completely agreed for all mailing lists other than those >> called out in the PR-action Last Call notice. If what you >> are saying is "let's force him off the enumerated set of >> mailing lists and then see what happens with other lists to >> which he might contribute", I can see some sense in that... >> Except that at least one of those lists --the ietf@xxxxxxxx >> one-- is something we at least used to tell people was >> important for full participation in the IETF. > Then perhaps the "balance" you are looking for is, "Suspend > posting rights on the enumerated lists only to the extent that > his posts are explicitly moderated instead of simply being > discarded, and encourage chairs of other lists to limit their > actions to the same." I see nothing in BCP 83 that forbids > this outcome. If the behavior seems to have improved over > (insert time of your liking), post another PR-Action > withdrawing the suspension. Without going back and studying BCP 83 again, I could happily accept that version of the outcome. I think it differs from what I was suggesting mostly in the terminology we use to describe it. I do have two concerns from what I remember of BCP 83 and some of the recent discussion. One is that BCP 83 does, IIR rather clearly, say that a PR-action cannot be reviewed in less than a year. So, if the "time of someone's liking", were significantly shorter than that, I'm not sure the above is possible. The other is that, if we are trying to avoid being punitive, giving Dan the "award" of being one of the very few PR-actions we have used does sound a bit like punishment. In the light of some of the disagreements we've seen over the last month, I would also be a bit concerned about adding to the burdens on the moderators to try to make decisions in this case consistent with community consensus (rough or otherwise). The arrangement I think you are proposing might also set Dan up for a fall if the moderators decided to reject something he submitted for posting and he thought, after consideration, that the posting was appropriate and the decision inappropriate. The model I proposed would carry much the same risk, but would encourage immediate IESG review and, if needed, decisive action. But, again, your suggestion and mine don't seem very different in practice, especially if there are no further inappropriate postings. best, john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
