On 27 Oct 2022, at 22:24, John C Klensin wrote:
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.
It's a SHOULD, not a MUST: Once taken, this action remains in force until explicitly nullified and SHOULD remain in force for at least one year.
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.
Giving chairs and list moderators the ability to control unrestricted posting by someone with a track record is a way to reduce disruptions. If non-disruptive postings were blocked, that would seem 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.
I would hope that someone subject to a PR-Action would do their best to keep their posts well within the lines, and if something approached but did not cross the line but was nonetheless held, I would hope that moderators (or the IESG) would quickly review and correct the decision.
Again, this does put some trust in moderators and the IESG to do the right thing, something I know others in this discussion do not trust them to do. But if we have lost that trust, we really have a different sort of problem than this one PR-Action.
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.
But your proposal would default to messages going through to everybody on the list and potentially causing disruption. If the behavior has in fact changed, there is very little difference between the outcomes. If the behavior has not changed, there is a big difference.
pr -- Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/ All connections to the world are tenuous at best -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
