Warren Kumari wrote on 22/06/2024 22:05:> I've written and deleted this
email multiple times now — in theory this
should have made me very good at it, but I suspect the opposite is true.
You sound like you're jaded with the discussion. A lot of people are :(
I think that the approach in draft-ecahc-moderation is more complicated
than it needs to be (and / or perhaps we need an additional process).
draft-ecahc-moderation looks reasonable. It delegates downwards, reports
upwards, has an appeal mechanism and isn't overly prescriptive. These
are all good things inside management of social constructs.
I think that we should just give the the IAB Chair, the LLC Chair, and
the IESG Chair (acting together) the capability, and, more importantly,
the responsibility, to perform emergency moderation (and, if necessary,
banning), and make the "dealing with egregious behavior" their problem.
This would be in addition to the current moderators, and would only be
used in egregious cases.
This is the benign dictatorship model. No doubt about it, there's a lot
going for it in terms of flexibility and the ability to react quickly,
and appropriately if the right people are in the right place. The
problem is, what do you do when the people entrusted with this
responsibility start making decisions which significant numbers of
people find unpalatable and where they don't back down. The options are
usually to remove the people or change the process. Both would be
significantly more complex to execute if the people in charge of
moderation were also in charge of the IETF.
Scaling out an organisation means devolving responsibility. No-one ends
with too much say about how the organisation operates. They should be
entrusted with the responsibilities of their position, and the rights to
act when appropriate. If/when there's a problem, they can be removed
without affecting the operation of the rest of the organisation. What's
outlined in draft-ecahc-moderation is one potential solution which fits
these criteria.
Nick
