(Commenting on part of a longer message posted to the Last Call list [1] although I'm copying the IESG. This part is clearly not specific to the PR-action Last Call in progress) --On Saturday, June 15, 2024 02:59 -0700 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > I may have to listen to the parties involved in a dispute before > making a determination in some other context. That is not how it > works in this context; the choice is between ratifying the decision > taken by IESG members or disagreeing with the decision. Right. But, in a way, that is no different from a Last Call on a protocol specification, especially one handled as an individual submission. You either agree with the decision of the author(s) and sponsoring AD that the spec is appropriate for Last Call and worth advancing or you don't. In this particular case, the person against whom the PR-action was proposed had the opportunity to speak out and even to engage in the discussion. Whether the comments they made strengthen the case for or against the PR-action is something the community might comment on but, like all other comments during Last Calls, the IESG ultimately decides on its value. Yes, it is different because of something others have observed and commented on: in general, the IETF is far better at dealing with technical specs than with procedural matters. Even among procedural matters, I think the recent discussion shows (not for the first time) that we are, as a community, better at dealing with ordinary procedural matters than with matters involving passing judgment on individual actions or behaviors. The latter is especially true when those matters can involve personalities, who likes or dislikes (or is friendly or unfriendly with) whom, etc. > Let's assume that there was a comment about the characteristics of > a person in a working group. If I was handling the mailing list, I > would enable the moderation flag for the sender until further > notice. I would inform the sender about the action and what to > expect. There would also have to be a message to the working group > mailing list as per the requirement in the relevant process > document. That, IMO, is part of a very separate problem. Some WG chairs (or list managers they designate) have the time and skills to do that thing well, others don't. Where a particular participant has a history of disagreeing with many or most others in the WG on technical matters, may feel that their concerns are being dealt with dismissively and maybe even in a way calculated to get them to drop out of the WG, and then says something rude about an individual they see as pushing such an agenda, it requires a great deal of insight, skill, and patience on the part of that list manager to handle things well -- talents and abilities that the typical IETF participant may not have, especially when under stress. I've heard from several ADs that it has gotten hard to find people who are willing to be WG Chairs. Some postings on the Last Call list have suggested that, the more we require WG Chairs to moderate mailing lists and solve interpersonal problems and to do so in ways that do not cause suspicions about their own motivations and behavior, the harder it will be to find people willing to serve as WG Chairs. If we think keeping possible behavior issues (including comments directed toward individuals) under control, it seems to me that, unless we can accurately predict when and where such incidents will occur, we need to either (i) avoid chartering WGs unless there is clear evidence that the proposed management structure for them (including chairs, list managers, and, if needed, ADs with the time and inclination to watch things closely), including carefully and fairly moderating the WG mailing list, will be adequate to deal with interpersonal problems if they arise. That would include shutting down WGs if leadership changes or patterns show that the management structure is no longer adequate) or (ii) change the mandate of the ombudsteam to cover, e.g., comments participants make about others or groups on mailing lists rather than limiting themselves to problems they deem much more serious than an individual comment or even several. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see willingness in the community to embrace either of those options. And I am very concerned about where that leaves us. By contrast, I see most of the problems with BCP 83 that have been called out in the recent discussions as being solvable (or at able be mitigated) with a carefully thought-out update. IMO, such an update would clarify that PR-actions are about protecting the community from patterns of disruptive behavior and not punishing bad behavior (any side effects notwithstanding); better define the boundary between behaviors that are appropriate for the IESG to deal with via PR-actions and behaviors that should be dealt with by the ombudsteam (noting that the latter option did not exist when BCP 83 was adopted); extending the lists for which PR-actions can be applied directly to all IETF-wide lists (e.g., Last-Call and IETF-announce as well is ietf@ietf); giving the PR-action decision-making process the option of making effects on, e.g., WG mailing lists opt-out rather than opt-in for the WG leadership; and, if they deem problem behavior as sufficient disruptive and/or egregious to require immediate action, giving the IESG the ability to suspend posting privileges during the Last Call period on a PR-action. I don't see that as solving all of the problems with the IESG, or the broader participant community, having to sit in judgment about the consequences of the behavior of some participants. It seems very unlikely that we can devise anything that would work perfectly, but it seems to me that updating BCP 83 along the lines outlined above would be a small step forward. Anyone want to join me in putting together a first draft of an I-D? And, if I/we were to do that, would members of the IESG be willing to move it forward or would that be a dead end? thanks, john [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/M_fYdSrmHYbyGul89UGSrPbWxSk
