On 22-Jun-24 22:45, 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.
I agree that is a weak point in the current proposal - but if the
alternative were to be yet another onerous job for the NomCom,
that wouldn't be ideal either. Any other suggestions?
As for the actual moderation policy, I think there should be community
review, but somebody has to draft the policy and keep it up to
date, and the moderators themselves seem well placed to do that.
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.
As I already suggested, we absolutely need a few individuals with
emergency powers for dealing with completely egregious messages.
It would be very sad if we don't trust the IETF Chair (as well as
the Exec. Director) for that.
Regards
Brian
