Absolutely not this. Far more recently, we had the then IETF chair instruct the then Sergeants-at-Arms (now revised to 'moderators' , and you're welcome) to silence people commenting on a topic announced on this list, that was very germane to the list. And that caused something of an uproar. We reject kings, presidents... and dictators. And that's what list moderation processes are for. If the only moderation process available is a BCP PR, then come up with and get widespread agreement on a newer, more appropriate, more lightweight, process and rules. I'm not saying the ecahc draft is it, but at least it's being thought about. (Having said that, it's nice to talk on a list where I know I won't have to deal with Harkins, at least not publically.) Can it be argued that this is all a necessary part of the IETF slowly turning into a properly administered civic body? Growing pains? Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx I should insert a relevant Cath-Speth quote here, but there are Just. So. Many. > On 22 Jun 2024, at 20:54, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi > >> On 22.06.2024 12:45, S Moonesamy wrote: >> Many years ago, Russ informed this mailing list that he took a decision on a message which was posted to the list. The list's participants were silent about that. In my opinion, it was because people understood that it was what an IETF Chair may have do in such circumstances. > > This. We have overprocessed ourselves to death. > > So... how do we dig ourselves out of this process hole? > > Eliot
