Sam Hartman writes: > I'd like to understand why changing the rules in the middle of a > process is a bad idea. They aren't rules if they can be changed even as they are being applied. If you want to make rules, you have to be willing to abide by them. Changing the rules even as they are applied is equivalent to not having rules to begin with (although I realize this is precisely the unstated goal for some people). > It should not be the case that if you collect sufficient evidence > you can get someone banned from a mailing list. You have a right to > expect that if you collect sufficient evidence of an administrative > problem like a problematic individual on a mailing list, this > problem will be solved in some way. You don't have a right or > expectation to demand a particular solution. If for example the IESG > successfully managed to convince the individual to clean up their > act, you don't have a right to be disappointed that a PR action was > not approved. (If the IESG claims they have convinced the individual > to clean up their act, you may well be dubious about whether this > claim is valid.) An alternative is to do nothing, which in the long run is the least disruptive and wasteful of resources. All "problematic individuals" are nothing more than one person irritating another, and if people cultivate tolerance instead of wasting their time bickering like schoolchildren, the overall result is greater productivity and flexibility for all. > In particular I'm having a hard time finding an ethical or logical > reason why we would not want to approve a process change that allows > a lesser sanction for behavior that is already prohibited. Can you > help me understand why that specifically would be a bad idea? Just because it is a change allowing a lesser sanction doesn't mean that it justifies setting the precedent of changing the rules in transit. > Now, there is one case where I can see a concern. If we are concerned > that the behavior may not be sanctionable today then what we are doing > might be problematic. We could make an explicit determination that > the behavior was currently prohibited before deciding to apply the > lesser sanction. Some people might question whether we could isolate > the two calls enough to make that decision. Or we could spend this time working on the real tasks of the group instead of whining about who should or shouldn't be banned. Every mailing list I've ever encountered is this way, constantly degenerating into personal attacks and attempts to censor and ban anyone who isn't sufficiently popular or well placed. Don't people ever grow up? > So I agree that a solution open to less question is to refuse to apply > a sanction, create a process change and wait for prohibited behavior to > happen again. Why not just drop the whole thing and pretend nothing ever happened? Then the group can get back to business. I know that business isn't nearly as much fun as goofing off with bans and censorship and arguments about bans and censorship and arguments about arguments about bans and censorship, but it _is_ the nominal purpose of the group, isn't it? > I think that if there is general agreement in the community that a > lesser sanction, were it available, would be adequate to solve a > problem, but we apply a greater sanction because that is the only > tool our process permits, there would be a claim for relief under > section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026. Or maybe a temporary estoppel motion for ad hoc pro tempore injunctive relief under subparagraph (b) of section IIa of codex 4 of Section 4.1.3.15/C (as amended) of RFC 4299182. You know, just writing ever more complicated policies and procedures doesn't make them useful or valid. > So, if the community decides that we need to avoid a sanction in some > specific case so we can change the process, I can agree with that > decision. If we choose to apply a sanction we agree is too great > simply because it is the tool we have, I look forward to a successful > appeal of our foolishness. Perhaps just stepping out of the sandbox and getting back to work would serve to eliminate the foolishness. I'm not holding my breath, though. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf