I support the PR action and I welcome that the IESG has reacted quickly (at least in respect to the latest, entirely inappropriate message). However, I also have to agree with Adam and others that the action is not well executed. The PR action as defined in BCP83 is designed to address "attack[s] to disrupt the consensus-driven process". I agree with others in the resulting discussion that we need to improve on moderation, especially in case of harassment, and I think that would require additional tools. An PR should not be executed based on one post only and without taking other actions first, which however is not the case in this case as Adam well illustrated. I would like to request the IESG more clearly identify the behavior that is abusive of the consensus-driven process in the final PR action as requested by BCP83 and in order to maximize transparency and fairness. Mirja On 08.06.24, 16:40, "IETF Chair" <chair@xxxxxxxx <mailto:chair@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: [You don't often get email from chair@xxxxxxxx <mailto:chair@xxxxxxxx>. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> ] The IESG has initiated a posting rights (PR) action that would restrict the posting rights of Timothy Mcsweeney per the procedures in BCP 83 (RFC 3683). Specifically, his posting privileges to the ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx> discussion list would be suspended. In the IESG's assessment, this individual’s recent post [1] was an egregious example of misogynistic harassment inconsistent with the IETF Guidelines for Conduct (RFC 7154), IETF Anti-Harassment Policy [2], and “abusive of the consensus-driven process” (per Section 2 of RFC 3683). The IESG recognizes the role of a progressive disciplinary process, to include the escalatory moderation practices of the IETF Discussion list moderators per RFC 9245 and [3]. Additionally, the IESG appreciates the role of the Ombudsteam and the IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures (RFC 7776). However, the IESG feels that this particular response of a PR is warranted in this situation. The IESG plans to make a decision and is soliciting final community comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@xxxxxxxx <mailto:last-call@xxxxxxxx> mailing lists by 6 July 2024 [4]. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx <mailto:iesg@xxxxxxxx> instead. If sending private feedback to the IESG, please indicate if you would be open to having your comments anonymized and shared in a summary. Note: Comments should be limited to the criteria described in BCP 83 (Section 1 of RFC3683), notably on whether the individual in question has engaged in behavior that is "unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject" in a manner disruptive enough to warrant this action. Roman Danyliw IETF Chair, on behalf of the IESG — [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NjNux65wUXXQaMmgENuwoopZPjI/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NjNux65wUXXQaMmgENuwoopZPjI/> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-ietf-anti-harassment-policy-20131103/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-ietf-anti-harassment-policy-20131103/> [3] https://github.com/ietf/Moderators/blob/main/sop.md <https://github.com/ietf/Moderators/blob/main/sop.md> [4] PR actions require an IETF Last Call (IETF LC). The four-week duration of this IETF LC is consistent with that of an AD-sponsored document action. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list -- ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-announce-leave@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-announce-leave@xxxxxxxx> -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
