>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Harald> Sam, trying to avoid pointing at persons, despite the fact
Harald> that a specific person is at the heart of the current
Harald> discussion...... your 3 points are very valid reasons for
Harald> avoiding rule changes, but I think you miss the point I
Harald> was trying to make.
Harald> The IESG was asked to choose between two alternatives:
Harald> - Execute a PR-Action against "X" - Do not execute a
Harald> PR-Action against "X"
OK. I actually view our responsibility more as use the tools we have
available to allow y to get its work done even given x's behavior. I
don't believe the central question is whether the PR action should be
executed.
Harald> In the ensuing discussion, you have argued that there
Harald> should be other procedures for mailing list management,
Harald> which are suited to "lesser offenses".
Harald> Doing this at the same time as considering the PR-action
Harald> against "X" has some interesting consequences:
Harald> - The "problem behaviour" that the rule seeks to address
Harald> is likely to get crafted so that it's clear whether "X"'s
Harald> behaviour falls within or outside the description. While
Harald> this makes things clearer in this case, I believe that
Harald> history shows very low predictive value for whether or not
Harald> such a rule will be clear once a new case comes along.
I am not proposing a new rule, simply a new sanction to be made
available.
Harald> - The "reaction" that the rule seeks to implement will
Harald> take the form of whatever the discussion concludes is a
Harald> reasonable reaction to the behaviour exhibited by
Harald> "X". Again, this is no predictor of whether or not the
Harald> reaction will be adequate, overreaction, or underreaction
Harald> for the next case that comes along.
Again, I'm not sure I see this applies to create a new possible sanction for the same behavior.
Harald> - The discussion that has to come before the final
Harald> crafting of the new rules is likely to take some time -
Harald> months, if experience is a guide. This offers an excuse
Harald> for avoiding making a decision in "X"'s specific case -
Harald> thus prolonging the time of indecision.
I believe this would be unacceptable if it happens.
That's why I I favor an experimental rule.
Harald> I do not want the IETF to craft rules for "X", and then
Harald> re-craft them for "Y", "Z" and "W" because hastily crafted
Harald> rules did not fit the next situation to come along. I want
Harald> the rules to be reasonable, and stable. And I think
Harald> making up rules while considering a specific unique case
Harald> is harmful to such a process.
Perhaps. However precident-based case law seems to work well for a
number of process systems.
Harald> One point in closing:
Harald> A PR-action, or a mailing list suspension, is NOT a
Harald> punishment. Rules of order exist to protect the IETF's
Harald> ability to do its work.
Here we completely agree.
I think I now understand the concerns you have. I believe perhaps
from a position of hubris that the IESG can manage these risks.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf