John, I think you err here in thinking that the IETF has a good reputation. I don't think that's entirely true. We do have a reputation for doing good work, but we also have a reputation for being slow, and for being bogged down in useless discussion. And for excluding people who are not highly tolerant of dysfunction. We should never be "too hasty," but currently I would describe our progress on this front as "not nearly hasty enough."
The benefit of an immediate-moderation policy is that it allows us to actually give people who might be disruptive a chance to reform, while protecting the community from them if they choose not to. The policy we have right now is disastrously slow to react to bad behavior, as the current discussion clearly reflects. So sure, let's be careful, but let's also be effective.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 2:52 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
(apologies for using the Last Call list for this but, given other
comments, it seems like the right place)
--On Tuesday, June 11, 2024 08:06 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I originally refrained from an opinion on this, since only one
> objectionable message was cited, and as I already stated,
[...]
For reasons that might have overlapped with Brian's -- but different
because I have intermittently noticed Tim's on-list behavior patterns
for some years -- I agree that this particular PR-action is
appropriate and perhaps even overdue. I wrote a note to the IESG to
that effect right after the Last Call announcement. However, the
draft explanation that came with the Last Call, strongly reinforced
by many of the comments in this thread (and the L2 one), have left me
very concerned about a more general issue and risk.
The Code of Conduct requires that we all speak, write, and act
professionally. That is, IMO, particularly important in discussions
about revoking posting rights or the underlying behaviors. The
rather careful language and procedures of RFC 3683 are not so much to
protect offenders at they are to protect the IETF and its reputation
from accusations that we are forcing people out of our discussions
because of their views or because the leadership doesn't like them.
So, in this case and any that follow in the future, I hope that we
can be extremely careful about our vocabulary and any specific
explanations that are given in a situation like this. In
particular, and using the IESG's language as an example, it seems to
me that there is no question that the posting was unprofessional,
inappropriate, obnoxious, and several other terms we could use. Many
of Tim's earlier postings to an assortment of IETF list clearly (at
least IMO) illustrate a continuing pattern of abuse and are, at least
cumulatively, disruptive (the criteria identified in RFC 3638/ BCP
83.
However, I can see nothing in that particular note that constitutes
harassment as that term is usually understood. Harassment, as
usually defined, requires repeated, continuing, and/or regular
behavior and one message doesn't do that (the situation in
combination with a more recent message or two might meet that test,
but those messages were still in the future when the IESG posted the
Last Call announcement).
Similarly, I can find nothing in the problematic posting that is
inherently misogynistic. It it were, than a statement by an IETF
participant (or any gender) that they found another IETF participant
(or any gender) attractive would constitute hating personals of the
latter gender, whether they expressed a desire to follow up on the
attraction or not. Again, unprofessional and obnoxious if posted to
a public list and probably harassment if the comment and "invitation"
where made repeatedly without any sign of interest (or indications of
disinterest) from the target party, but "misogynistic" is quite a
stretch.
So, while I support the PR-action and believe it is entirely
justified based on a regular pattern of behavior and at least some
signs of disrupting the IETF's processes, I wish we could be much
more careful about the specific accusations we make and language we
use -- even more in the future and for the next case as to this
particular one. If we start, even in principle, considering a single
unprofessional and obnoxious note justification for a PR-action on
the basis of conclusions that are not obvious from that note, the
IETF's reputation is at risk long term.
And, btw, I think we need to be very careful about proposals for
blanket bans as well. We have several examples in the history of the
IETF of people who have regularly been unprofessional, obnoxious, and
disruptive but who have still made important technical contributions,
maybe ones that no one else could have made. I think it is entirely
appropriate to leave the decision of whether the advantages of the
latter outweigh the disadvantages of having to put up with the former
up to each WG and its leadership. We might tune things to let WGs
opt out of a ban rather than requiring them to opt in, but let's not
eliminate the option.
john
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
