Dear Brian; On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:15:05 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm interested to know whether people would see arguments for > either or both of > > 1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a dispute > mediator. > > 2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning procedures > from the IESG. > I would support this. I suspect that suggestion number 1 might be most appropriate. These cases are going to be tough, and an outside review with some measure of independence from the system will be necessary to be seen as fair. For example, in the original email of David Kessens, which contained a mail thread of "abusive" mail, the trouble to me was that no one of those emails contained anything I would regard as abusive. The trouble is that the abuse (if any) is in the pattern over time, not what's said at any one time. I remember back in 1997 or so being on a working group mailing list that was subject to the attentions of the Alternic and IPv8 crowd. While their posts were mostly polite, the shear number of them, and the way that things could go off on total tangents did represent a DOS. (Frankly, the words Chinese Water Torture come to mind.) Once you've been subjected to something like that for a while, there is a real danger of over-reaction, banning people just because they innocently bring up a sensitive topic. And, of course, it may be hard to convince people you are being fair no matter what you do, if there is no one email you can point to as evidence. So I think that intrinsic to fairly treating this problem is a need to convince someone on the outside of the reality of the perceived abuse. If the offender consistently (say) calls someone rude names, that is easy, and can be done (say) on this list. If the abuse consists of a pattern of email traffic over time, then someone will have to at least dip into the stream and read it, and that (to me) suggests an Ombudsman. In the case that engendered this discussion, for example, I see no outwardly abusive emails of the name-calling variety, but neither do I feel the inclination to read a few months of back traffic for the relevant WG's. In the best Scottish tradition, I would therefore have to return a verdict of "not proven," and would feel happier if there was a report from an outside party. If there is to be a committee, I would suggest that it be formed randomly from volunteers who hold no other posts, in the NomCom fashion. Regards Marshall > Brian > > Dave Crocker wrote: > > > >>> That's the reason the process model delegates handling such problems > >>> to specific individuals, rather than having all of us, together, > >>> participate in the review and assessment. > >> > >> > >> Actually, 3683 specifically requires community discussion of motions > >> to block someone's posting rights. It is, in so many words, done by a > >> Last Call. > > > > > > > > I was too cryptic. > > > > Were we only subject to discussion of a 3683 Last Call and were that > > discussion limited to the actual merits of the complaint, we would have > > very, very little ietf list traffic in this realm. > > > > What actually happens is that we get lots of list discussion at each > > step along the way, starting with individual pique at a claimed offense, > > individual pique that someone posted a note stating their individual > > pique, endless discussion about proper process, and endless discussion > > about abuses of process. > > > > My point about delegation is that it is based on a desire to offload > > some/much/most/all of a task so that the full community is not burdened > > with all of the details. The difference between the > > "some/much/most/all" of course depends upon how much of the burden the > > community wants to retain. > > > > The concept of a public Last Call, for the disciplinary process, > > suggests that only the final stage of the process needs to be fully public. > > > > If we are going to get the desired benefit that comes from delegating > > things, we need to be more selective in what is discussed publicly. > > That's not a call for censorship. It is a call for discipline. > > > > For one thing, debating the official details of process requirements > > should almost certainly be taken offline from the IETF list. > > > > For another, individual pique is best pursued either by private exchange > > or through formal complaint. Neither requires burdening the full IETF > > list. > > > > d/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf