On 14-Jun-24 06:02, Chris Box wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 18:34, Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The draft defines an IETF wide moderator team, which would then be
tasked with defining a moderation policy and with proposing enforcement
actions.
The draft does not specify the number of moderators, except for saying
"no less than 3". I think it should.
I'd also like draft-ecahc-moderation to be clearer on this, but I'm wary of hardcoding this up front.
Based on IETF list experience I would recommend a minimum of 5 people. This is based on a desire to have 3 of those to be available to discuss a case at the time it arises. But it will vary according the schedule of the individuals, and the size of the workload.
Sure. I think the "no less than 3" was with some thought about covering all time zones, but I'm sure more are needed in practice.
It does not specify terms, or term limits, or processes for removing a
member from the team. I think it should, if only because moderation is
both a community service and a form of power. There are negative effects
for anyone staying too long in a position of power. There is also a need
make sure the moderators are independent, which is often ensured by
specifying fixed terms with a documented recall procedure. Then there is
a need to acquire experience, which implies terms should not be too
short, and that there should be an overlap between new members and
continuing members. Something like staggered 2 to 4 years terms come to
mind.
Agree with all of that.
Certainly.
The draft specifies that the moderators are appointed by the IETF chair,
who would also be the first step in the appeal chain. I am not sure
about that, because having a single source of appointment seems in
contradiction with the required diversity. Panels of that nature are
often appointed by multiple authorities. In our case, that might mean
some by the IETF chair, some by the IAB chair, some by the IETF board.
Fair comment, but we also don't want too much complexity; we already have
lots of nomination/appointment mechanisms in the IETF universe.
Multiple appointing authorities sounds beneficial, but I don't have a strong opinion.
I also wish there would be some way to formalize community input in the
making of rules. Issues like insult and harassment may be obvious, but a
lot of the disruption come in the form of nitpicking and prolonging
discussions, leading to the hundred message threads that put off many
outsiders. Yet, we don't want to stop well funded technical arguments,
or set procedures to automatically discard such arguments as nitpicking.
I don't think that the moderator team can easily decide the difference
between "well funded technical argument" and "disruptive nitpicking". We
need some kind of community process there.
But (as the terminology debate itself showed) that can get very messy in itself.
I definitely welcome community input to the guidelines and procedures.
Finally, I am worried about reinforcing the influence of large
corporations on the IETF. Each time we create new structures, we have to
be worried about how we will recruit people to do that. If the task is
onerous, volunteers will be hard to find. That leads to selecting from
the pool of volunteers funded by their employers, which tends to be
filled with employees of large corporations.
Yes the task can be onerous, but having a monthly paycheck doesn't make it less so. Having a larger moderator team would reduce the load.
And making clear that the first stage is done by WG Chairs, because that scales and a central team doesn't.
Brian
Chris
