If IESG is working on getting out of the moderation business, and
(hopefully also) out of the business of telling moderators what to do, I
think that's a promising step, and I'm happy to learn that.
Who does set the policy for moderation? A new WG ?
I don't know what people have in mind for these, so I won't try to
speculate.
How would it fare differently than past discussion on this list where
a handful of very loud people yell CENSORSHIP and the majority of
people want better moderation (or gave up and left the list) ?
In other words, I’m pretty sure you’d be in the rough on this topic.
But perhaps that’s good to formalize with a WG.
I don't think you're in a position to characterize a discussion that
hasn't happened yet. For the moment, what I'll observe is that when any
IESG chair or moderators make up rules on their own, that's a really
good way for them to be arbitrary and to impose their own prejudices
(deliberate or accidental) on the entire group. So I have a lot more
confidence in a process that actually tries to develop consensus and
where the process manager (presumably a WG chair) is supposed to be
neutral and to make sure that a variety of perspectives are aired.
As for me, I've always said that I have no problem with rules as long as
they're reasonably unambiguous (not relying on vague words like
"professional" that are basically appeals to prejudices and
preconceptions) and vetted by IETF consensus. What I don't like at
all is when moderators make up rules on their own, as they are doing now.
From my perspective, most of the hostility and unpleasantness has
been caused or at least exacerbated by recent IETF Chairs, their
appointees, and sometimes by members of IESG.
I have more confidence in the organization when the community
believes it is empowered to provide input, and believes that IESG
listens to that input
You seem to be accusing the IESG of not listening to the community
by pretending you are speaking for the community.
No, I'm quite clearly speaking for myself. Please don't put words in
my mouth.
I am not. It is the only logical conclusion of your sentence above.
False, and I find your accusation to be inexcusably insulting.
What you can authoritatively say is that Keith would have more
confidence and would feel more empowered if Keith believed the IESG
would listen to him. That is a statement I would agree with. Your
statement however, lacks being actually representative of the community.
My own statement was clearer and more precise.
It was not. It states that the community is assumed to believe it is
not empowered by the current leadership. I merely clarified that to be
just your personal (misguided) view.
It does not state that at all.
Keith
