The intention in BCP 83 ("A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists") is to limit disruption caused by an individual in IETF email lists. It is necessary and should remain proportionate to the offense (e.g. scoped to lists where problems were observed). Considering the importance of mailing lists for work in IETF, this can be considered a drastic penalty.
However here we're going to a different level where you are effectively preventing someone to work with IETF in any way. For some it could be equivalent to losing your job.
I feel we're losing the indispensable proportionality of the sanction.
Granting "certain moderation privileges to WG chairs and similar roles" should not be arbitrarily expanded into domains that are not even mentioned in community-sanctioned policies. It could even invite legal retaliation in court in the absence of clearly agreed policies.
This is a slippery slope to follow for a community which praises openness and welcome.
Julien (speaking as an individual).
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 12:10 PM
To: Samuel Weiler <weiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: BCP 83 PR actions and new media
Hi,
On Nov 10, 2022, at 10:49, Samuel Weiler <weiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm asking if the penalty imposed by a PR action also applies to other-than-email IETF communications, e.g. may a WG chair block someone already subject to a PR action from posting in a Github repository?
not based on BCP83, in my understanding of the process.
That said, the underlying principle here - in my mind - is that the community has granted certain moderation privileges to WG chairs and similar roles, and the community hence has the expectation that they should apply to all of the contribution channels a given group is utilizing. So if a WG is using - for example - GitHub issues, I would assume that WG expects its chairs to moderate that contribution channel alongside any others.
That principle is AFAIK not explicitly written down, and so challenging such a moderation action for a contribution channel that isn't the mailing list would need to happen along the appeals path. That is somewhat dissatisfying in terms of the associated process overhead, but until we have consensus on a different moderation approach, this approach should serve in the interim.
Thanks,
Lars
