> > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > > > > 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. > > > > Brian > Ahh, you beat me to the punch ;) > Both great ideas. I think this kind of issue is not predicated on deep technical knowledge, and really anyone who is familiar with the general IETF process would be quite capable to deal with such an issue. I'm firmly would put my faith in a comitee of say 5-10 over a smaller number any day however, with posting rights only revocable by unanimous consensus. > 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. > Not sure about any good qualifiers, but I think it would be prudent to say force a member to recuse themselves if the issue concerns a WG in which they take an active roll. > I'm probably getting ahead of things but I was also thinking > some controls could be implemented to discourage frivolous > accusations. I realize that someone who repeatedly accuses > falsely won't be taken seriously, but sometimes the goal is > disruption and uncertainty which unfortunately these > accusations are almost guaranteed to provide. > First time you falsely accuse someone there should be a warning. It could also just be considered a learning opportunity. I don't think we should put up with more than a second time. > Anyway I think it's a great idea Brian. > Perhaps a good start would be to identify a few messages/threads which embody the type of posting we are trying to stop. Also I think a handy mechanism would be the notion of a "cooling off" period. While it may be futile to get someone to drop an issue completely, perhaps allowing WG Chairs for example to say "don't bring this up for a week or your posting rights will definitely be rescinded" is a simple way to force people to cool off, rethink their positions, and possibly come up with an amicable solution, possibly off the list even. We certanly don't wan't altercations taking place on the list. For example, I don't think that many issues start out too far outside what is acceptable, but as improprieties creep in it becomes difficult to blame one person without blaming another. I think this mechanism also provides a much more clear cut defenition of what is acceptable and what is not. -Tom
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf