Ted,
On 11-Jun-24 12:18, Ted Lemon wrote:
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.
Yes, that's a possible policy, but not the one described by BCP 45, which specifically refers to "a pattern of abuse". It is much the same in BCP 25 (RFC 2418) with phrases like "If the behavior persists..." and "As a last resort and after explicit warnings...".
Note, I'm not saying we couldn't change our rules, which were perhaps designed in a kinder, gentler age, but for the moment those are our rules.
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.
We all do.
So simply dismissing my comment about this feels pretty unhelpful,
Sorry, my point was really what I just said in this message: our existing rules don't allow for that interpretation of "moderation". We'd need to change the rules.
If draft-ecahc-moderation were to move forward, this could be one of the points to be considered.
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.
That seems like useful input for the eodir folk (https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/eodir/about/), although educational/tutorial material in this area is tricky to get right.
Regards
Brian
Op ma 10 jun 2024 om 17:00 schreef Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <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
