Hi Lars,
On 11-Nov-22 00:09, Lars Eggert wrote:
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.
I believe you are correct. But it is a bit unsatisfactory that our procedure of last resort for a person who is causing disruption via mailing lists is different than for a person who is causing disruption via pull requests. So some generalisation of BCP 83 seems logical. However, I think a few provisos would apply:
- the subject of a PR-action for one medium should not, IMHO, be automatically excluded from IETF use of another medium. In other works, a PR-action for mailing lists would not *automatically* extend to GitHub, etc. Of course, if disruption occurs in multiple media, so should the PR-action.
- I would have major concerns about preventing anybody from posting I-Ds. Apart from anything else, I-Ds are not just for the IETF. On the other hand, clearly we need the power to stop a DOS attack on the I-D system.
- I think that sticking our nose into *any* communication that does not involve IETF services, resources or meetings is problematic. If a person1@xxxxxxxxxxx sends objectionable mail to person2@xxxxxxxxxxx, it seems very tricky for any IETF intervention to occur.
(Note that the anti-harassment policy is scoped: "IETF participants must not engage in harassment while at IETF meetings, virtual meetings, social events, or on mailing lists." Maybe that needs to be slightly extended to cover other IETF communication media.)
Brian
