On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 06:47:36PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote: > > 2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning > > procedures from the IESG. > > I'm a big fan of the netiquette committee. I'd like to suggest that > volunteers be allowed to "throw their names into the hat" and that members > be selected blindly from that pool. This would of course avoid any stacking > or favoritism, but we would need a "qualifier" that prevented interlopers > from submitting their name. Though I hate to suggest it as it would exclude > me from selection, having attended an IETF meeting in the last x years could > possibly be a good filter. Maybe. I see two potential problems: 1) Serving on this committee is going to be no fun at all. Getting qualified people to sign up for what will only be seen as a sh*t job is going to be difficult. And how do you exclude certain known (repeat) troublemakers from throwing their hat into the ring? Or maybe you don't, but then if they get selected, they would then have the opportunity to practice their own unique form of DOS on the netiquette committee? 2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette committee, during the committee is considering a request, and after the committee has rendered a decision, is ruled out of scope, it's not going to help the very long discussions such as this one which plague the IETF list. In the worst case, we can assume that the mailing list abuser will immediately appeal any decision of the netiquette committee, which means that after inventing this entire mechanism, it may not have any effect other than prolonging the agony. Problem (2) could be solved by making the decisions of the netiquette committee not subject to appeal, but that causes its own problems and potential for abuse of the people who do end up on the committee. But if you don't, then people who are intent on practicing their DOS attacks (or otherwise impose their view of their world on us) will simply use our procedures against us. I suppose we could try to add some sanctions such as using a very large ban time (measured in multiple years), so the benefit of trying to get someone banned from the list is worth the cost, assuming we are willing to preserve through the entire tortious process of (a) a decision by the netiquette committe, (b) an appeal to the IESG, (c) an appeal to the IAB, and eventually (d) an appeal to the Internet Society --- or perhaps we could impose an automatic doubling of the sanctions if someone attempts an appeal, and double the eventual ban time at each level of appeal if the banning is eventually upheld. But there isn't really a good solution to this problem, unfortunately. - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf