Does the IESG have the authority to do less than 3683?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:

    John> For whatever it is worth, I want to remind the IESG that,
    John> before there was RFC 3683, there was a notion, not only of
    John> 30 day suspensions, but of exponential (or other rapidly
    John> increasing series) back-off.  If someone is being severely
    John> disruptive on a particular list, it would seem reasonable to
    John> me for the relevant AD to authorize a 60 day suspension if a
    John> 30 day one is ineffective, a 120 day suspension if that is
    John> ineffective, and so on.  The nature of that arithmetic is
    John> such that someone could, with sufficient repeated disruptive
    John> behavior, find themselves rather effectively banned for the
    John> effective duration of a WG.  If the IESG believes that a
    John> formal RFC3933 experiment is needed to do that, then let's
    John> write down and run that experiment.  But, until we have
    John> tried the above --and any other plausible actions we can
    John> think of-- let's save the 3683 actions for those whose
    John> behavior is more clearly inappropriate and non-constructive
    John> than Jefsey's.


Hi, John.  The prevailing view on the IESG seems to be that the
combination of RFC 3683 and 3934 actually took away our ability to
approve suspensions greater than 30 days but short of a PR action.
Others seem to believe that while we might want to fix that, we should
deal with this matter first.

can you see a reading of 2418 as amended, 3934 and 3683 together that
give the IESG the power to approve a longer suspension?

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]