On 6/22/24 06:45, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Brian, All,
At 02:02 PM 12-06-2024, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I hope the moderators will excuse me Bcc'ing this message to the Last
Call list in an attempt to switch discussion to the main IETF list.
I think we do indeed need to review moderation as a whole and pick a
venue to discuss
draft-ecahc-moderation.
The objective of draft-ecahc-moderation is to create a moderator team
for all IETF contribution channels. The motivation is to deal with
"disruptive behavior" (Section 3) given that the IESG-led process
(authors' description) of PR-actions is viewed as ineffective.
If the problem is the following: "The IETF community has not been able
to agree on a common definition of disruptive behavior.", the fix
proposed by the authors would be to have the IETF community agree to
the IETF Chair appointing some people to agree on some definition and
be responsible for the implementation. Such an approach caused a
problem previously, if I am not mistaken. The reaction to that was to
prevent the IETF Chair from intervening in the day-to-day operation.
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.
IMO, IESG, including the IETF Chair, need to get entirely out of the
business of content policing and moderation. That's very far from
their core competence (which should be technical engineering more than
social engineering), it's (hopefully) not what they're selected for by
nomcoms, it's an unwelcome distraction, and it harms the IESG's ability
to be seen as a fair arbiter of both rough consensus and technical
decisions.
There is a need for some level of correction in response to
inappropriate posts, probably up to and including even expulsion from
all IETF activities in the most extreme of cases. But IESG shouldn't
be doing it, nor even setting policy.
Keith
