--On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 13:31 -0500 Samuel Weiler <weiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Colleagues, > > Do PR actions also apply to other-than-email IETF > communications such as Github, Slack, Zulip, and whatever new > collaboration technologies we adopt in the future? > > I propose that they should and that we should not need to > revise BCP 83 every time we add a new collaboration > technology, and I'm hoping you agree with me. > > As history, RFC 3683 was published in March 2004, around the > same time the IETF was actively working on Jabber. Sam, To add to your list (and to Keith's comment about scope), are people to whom BCP 83 has been applied allowed to post Internet-Drafts? To register for meetings? To be Nomcom-eligible? In particular, if something said in an I-D can be used as part of the rationale for a PR-action (it is not completely clear to me whether or not that should be the case), then certainly such an action should be able in include cutting off I-D posting privileges or at least subjecting I-Ds to aggressive moderation). And, to borrow a note from today's discussion in ELEGY, if someone is abusive and disruptive enough on one or more mailing lists to justify a PR-action, inviting them to a meeting (possibly even with a fee waiver) where they can be abusive or disruptive f2f, at a room microphone, and/or over Meetecho would not make obvious sense. While I think answers to those questions (including yours and Keith's) are probably important, it is probably even more important that we ask the questions and be clear about rules and expectations rather then trying to make things up the next time a proposed PR-action case comes along. best, john
