Why was this thread on the last-call list? It's not about a last call. On 11-Jun-24 04:05, Ted Lemon wrote: ...
I would say that this PR-action is too little
Read BCP 83. It is *indefinite* unless revoked, and all list managers may apply it at their discretion. How is that too little? It allows the IETF to completely muzzle somebody.
, too late.
Possibly, but anybody could have requested the IESG to do this sooner, but nobody did. ...
Right now we don't actually have any sort of formal moderation process,
Huh? That's exactly what the moderators just did. ...
I would say our current harassment policy is actually fairly vague.
I think the Ombudsteam would beg to differ, but in any case this isn't an anti-harassment action; that's a separate pathway. On 11-Jun-24 04:07, Ted Lemon wrote:
Oh, one additional point: a PR-action shouldn't be per-mailing list.
It isn't. It allows all list managers to block the sender. On 11-Jun-24 04:34, Chris Box wrote:
Last year many former IETF Chairs proposed such an IETF-wide moderation scheme: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ecahc-moderation-00.html
We did. But moderation would still start with the WG Chairs - a single team cannot feasibly moderate all lists. Maybe this needs to be in the gendispatch/alldispatch list. Brian
