To some degree, yes. Casting back to
what I said in my initial note: it's hard to account for all the
potential behaviors that might apply. A rule like "if someone
makes an explicit, stated, public promise to become disruptive
across a range of IETF mailing lists should a PR action proceed,
then that person may be proactively banned from all IETF mailing
lists upon the completion of a successful PR action" is likely
uncontroversial, but it's also hyper-specific to this situation,
and has basically no value to future situations.
A key point I was trying to make in my
initial message to this thread is that the range of bad behavior
that people may choose to exhibit is so difficult to get in front
of that it's a fool's game to try to predict the specific style of
threat I quote below and to set out specific remedies to address
it. We could compose a 1,200-page RFC that described all kinds of
specific untoward behavior and corresponding remedies for each,
and we'd still miss out things that bad actors are likely to
actually do in the future. But once a threat such as "you can be
sure that I won't be participating in good faith on any other list
after a ban" is levied, the corresponding appropriate remedy is
crystal clear.
To Brian's point: it's true that we
don't have a rule in BCP 83 that says that a blanket ban is an
available remedy, but these rules are not handed down ex cathedra
from some divine oracle. These rules derive their legitimacy from
the consensus of IETF participants -- a consensus that is judged on
this very list. Arguably, consensus on this list on a topic
should have the same weight as anything written down in a BCP
(since consensus on this list is sufficient for something to
appear in a BCP).
And so I don't think there's any action
needed to empower the community to decide what the community is
allowed to decide. It seems like make-work.
But if it makes people feel better: if
there's anything that BCP 83 might be updated to say, I would
offer that it be something along the lines of "In addition to the
remedies described in this document, as part of the PR action last
call, the community may identify and come to consensus on
additional sanctions appropriate to the specific actions of the
individual whose posting rights are being revoked; and any such
sanctions that reach community consensus shall be enforced by the
IETF and their delegates to the degree possible." It is my
position that this is functionally already true, for the reasons I
describe above, but I would not object to codifying it in this
manner.
/a
On 6/11/2024 10:16 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
Yes, that's indeed what at least some of us are advocating: an update to the BCP.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:44 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12-Jun-24 13:03, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 6/11/24 17:25, Dan Harkins wrote:
>> So let's rein this in a bit. No blanket bans. I don't know Tim
>> McSweeney from Adam and my opinion on this last-call is pretty
>> worthless given my current standing but unless there is a problem
>> on a list, people should not be banned.
>
>
> In the general case, I agree. In this case, I think the following promise makes a blanket ban not just advisable, but entirely necessary:
But we don't have a rule that allows this. A PR Action *allows* all
list managers to ban the person; the IESG would have to go further
than all existing BCPs to do more than this. That's not impossible,
but would need a separate Last Call, I think.
Brian
>
>
> On 6/9/24 23:05, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
>> And Roman, if I were you, I would expand this ban to all of the lists because you can be sure that I won''t be participating in good faith on any other list after a ban.
>
>
> /a
>
>
--
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
