Almost all of our community driven processes are really "interested parts of the community". Which is typically very small. And for all primarily external-facing work product that works quite well. I don't think it works well for internal-facing work product. If only less than 5% of the community have/use a vote/opinion by which the community is meant to operate, than thats a very elitist community. Thats why i am always promoting to use community questionaires or something similar on core community affecting decisions. Cheers Toerless On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:49:18PM -0500, Adam Roach wrote: > 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 <mailto: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 > > <mailto:last-call@xxxxxxxx> > > To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx > > <mailto:last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > -- > last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
