On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:54 AM Paul Wouters <paul.wouters=40aiven.io@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 13, 2023, at 15:10, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 9/13/23 13:11, Paul Wouters wrote:On Sep 13, 2023, at 12:51, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:And IESG should stick to technical review and get out of the business of, for example, deciding which participants to marginalize based on their presumed prejudices.I can’t parse the hyperbole you are referring at here. If you are referring at moderation (which your message itself shows is really needed) then I believe a proposal is worked upon so the IESG doesn’t have to take that on. If you are referring to masking policies, I agree that is something the community should move to the LLC. If you are referring to something else, I recommend using clearer and objective description of the IESG task you wish to see moved.
Ok, to clarify, I was referring to "moderation" and other efforts that I've seen to marginalize certain participants based on their views and/or how they think.I won’t comment on this again, as no new information is presented.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 ? 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 he is in the rough on this topic, especially that many feel that there are signs of political instability in IETF. There is a big need to update IETF policy, and we see many input from the community preparing for that and in last ietf117 meeting there was ADs asking for community proposals in plenary.
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 inputYou 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.
I never conclude that any input can speak for community even if that input was from WG/IETF chair, however, IETF input go through Policy_process to speak for community. IESG with high propability are not able to listen to the community, that is why ietf_community needs good WG chairs and list moderators to follow up the discussions per WG/list to insure matching of ietf_policy with ietf_process.
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.
Any ietf discussion view or input SHOULD be very import, even if it was from a non_ietf_author. So any assumption can be analyse because there can be possibility of it when the ietf community is larger than ietf_attendances or ietf_rfc_authors. Some people beleive that community is only authors and attended participants.
IMHO it is important that leaders/whom_responsible give chance to any micro-community or small group or minority or individual to give feedback on any ietf proposal/activity/performance/decision. However, the future ietf_participants/leaders will always have more knowledge/analysis_results/correct_conclusions from the present, so we don't need to hurry up to what input/assumption/decision was right or wrong.
best wishes,
AB
