--On Tuesday, June 11, 2024 15:46 -0400 Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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." Ted, I agree with you about the reputation issue, or at least a slide in the direction you describe. I was trying to avoid complicating the existing discussion with that one and might have said "however good or bad the IETF's reputation is at present, it would be a good idea to not make it worse... lest the reputation in other areas intrude on the perception that we do good work (the quality of which, on a bad day, I think is slipping badly as well). I also agree about bogging down and useless discussion, which is another reason my original note went only to the IESG -- if this discussion started, I did not want to be the cause. I also said another thing or three in my note to them that I think would be inappropriate or undesirable to say on-list. > 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. No objection in principle, but I suggest that we have a policy that allows for immediate moderation on a per-list basis. List owners (and the SAA team, etc.) have more than sufficient authority to say "bad behavior, no more postings for two weeks and that ban will be extended and a request make to the IESG to consider a PR-action if there isn't clear evidence that you understand the norms and issues and will take responsibility and clean up your act". Such a decision could be appealed, but I think it would be an entirely reasonable interpretation of the rules (and consistent with the "Do the Right Thing" principle) if the IESG and list owners would agree that the ban stays in effect until the appeal was resolved. >From that point of view at least, slowness to react is a property of how the process is carried out rather than a property of the process and rules themselves. Some adjustments there may be in order and, as I have hinted, I think some small adjustments in the rules themselves may be in order too. At the same time, I am sufficiently concerned about the potential for these sorts of actions being used to suppress dissent or ideas (or people) the leadership finds disagreeable that, again, I think we need to be extra-careful about vocabulary and decisions that require an assessment of a post-er's intent or state of mind. "This behavior is clearly bad, its badness cannot be misinterpreted, and we are acting on that basis" than decisions that require evaluation or attribution of intent. It would also, typically, be faster. I think we can be careful without being slow. And this particular case is a terrible example for use in shaping policy because I, and substantially everyone else who has responded to the Last Call, believe that a PR-action against Tim and his behavior (cumulating in the cited note but not entirely because of it) is entirely justified. And, for better or worse, that is it from me for a while -- I cannot devote enough time to this thread to respond carefully and intelligently to a long series of postings. If that means you have to ignore my earlier posting(s), that is the price I have to pay. john -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
