What I mean by moderation is that the posts of a person who has demonstrated even a single instance of apparently antisocial posting are blocked until they can be reviewed by a moderator, one by one. I don’t mean that someone steps in once after a pattern of abusive behavior has continued for multiple exchanges over a day or more.
Regarding the rules, I very much meant what I said there: if you are socially competent, I’m sure the rules are quite clear, but for someone who is not, figuring out what behaviors are okay and what aren’t is hard: my go-to is simply to never do anything that I can even conjecture might violate one of these rules or ever make anyone in any way uncomfortable. And I still screw up. So simply dismissing my comment about this feels pretty unhelpful, although I realize it may seem a bit off-topic. I think being clear, giving examples, etc, might actually be useful for some participants. It might even prevent some people from getting angry and acting out, which was my point.
Op ma 10 jun 2024 om 17:00 schreef Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
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
