(Though I agree with most of what Harald said, I will respond on-list only to Margaret.) Margaret Wasserman <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I generally support publication of this draft as an Experimental RFC, I was never able to "support" it; but until the GENAREA meeting, I regarded it as a "necessary evil" and was careful to not obstruct it. (I must immediately point out that good people _often_ propose a "necessary evil", and I am 100% convinced Sam is a good person.) > and I hope that the IESG will use this mechanism to support more > moderate and more effective mailing list control over the next 18 > months. It would be far more productive for IESG to publicly state that they will entertain no more BCP83 indefinite-suspensions until an acceptable alternative is tried. (And there's a very obvious alternative: returning to the increasing-length suspensions that "inadvertently" disappeared during the adoption of BCP83. The IESG should do this, BTW, in self-defense against the DoS attack which BCP83 is becoming against the IESG itself. To adopt Sam's proposal, IMHO, would open the IESG to an _additional_ level of DoS attacks against their actual functions. (I could never, BTW, have raised my hand to Brian's question, "Who thinks this is a bad idea?" because almost everyone would perceive that as a lack of trust of the current IESG members.) > I consider this a good stop-gap measure to provide the IESG with more > flexibility while we take longer-term steps to determine what type(s) > of mailing list control are acceptable and reasonable for use within > the IETF, and until we can update our BCPs to reflect those decisions. I can't think of any good way to say what needs to be said here. :^( Let me try this one: (Preface this with a disclaimer: I am a stauch Republican, strongly committed to supporting George Bush for the remainder of his term.) There are a lot of Americans who realize the dangers inherent in the so-called "Patriot Act". "George the Second" found himself asking for powers he must have known would be abused, and IMHO proposed the "Patriot Act" as a "necessary evil". It was by no means the first time such a response to a perceived threat has happened. It's not even the first time in the rather short history of the United States. I suggest thinking back to the Spanish Inquisition... Please don't forget that the "Patriot Act" was adopted as a temporary "emergency measure". Everyone now recognizes that there's no possibility it will go away during George Bush's term in office. The "temporary" has a long history of outliving the "permanent", especially in what we like to call "representative" bodies. My point is, there's nothing in Sam's proposal to ensure that the "experiments" which it might produce will be "more moderate". Let me repeat my point: However much Margaret may "hope that the IESG will use this mechanism to support more moderate... measures", there's nothing in Sam's proposal which ensures that. I see a _lot_ of sentiment for _less_ moderate measures. I see every reason for the IESG to adopt them "as experiments" in self-defense against the DoS which BCP83 represents. I see "going back to BCP83" as so unpleasant to IESG members that the "experiments" will be extended. > This experiment will also give us an opportunity to try some different > mechanisms for mailing list management and to gain valuable experience > regarding what works and what doesn't. We don't need Sam's proposal in order to do this: we only need to write up a mechanism in terms of an experiment, and agree to try it as an individual experiment. Sam's proposal is, in essence, to turn the IESG into a "representative" legislative body. IESG members, if they don't instinctively realize how much of a DoS against their proper functions this may be, should look carefully at existing "representative" legislative bodies and ask folks who have served on them what it's really like. > During the Gen Area meeting today, it was asserted that if this > experiment is successful, this document might become a BCP essentially > as written... I have some major concerns about the idea that we would > be running this experiment with a goal of making this particular draft > a BCP. I'm _very_ glad to hear that. > First, I am not sure how/if the community will have enough visibility > into the results of this experiment to reasonably determine whether > it has been successful. That is an unknown, certainly. I would predict that unless somebody outside the IESG has specific reporting responsibility, we won't. > Will the IESG be expected to provide any reports on which types of > experimental mailing list control do/don't work? That, alas, doesn't really matter. The IESG will _not_ have the time to produce meaningful reports. :^( > Do we have any measures, even subjective ones, that could be used to > determine whether things get better or worse during the period of > this experiment? I can guarantee a constituency which will consider _any_ increase in banning to be "better". I wish I could guarantee the existing constituency which considers _any_ increase in banning to be "worse" will stay around. :^( We certainly do _not_ have consensus on any such measures. > Also, I don't think that it is a good idea to effectively give the > IESG absolute, unilateral control of our mailing list management, It is a bad idea, simply from an information-theory standpoint. > including the discretion to use different rules for different lists > and change those rules over time. But _somebody_ (or some body) needs to have that discretion. There are too many different types of lists for a single set of rules to make sense. > To put this in the terms that Brian defined in the Gen Area meeting > (see his slides in the proceedings if you weren't there), this > document gives the IESG broad discretion over both the process and > procedures that will be used for IETF mailing list control, and it > does not assert any principles that should be used to guide those > processes and procedures. Bingo! (This, BTW, is _absolutely_ typical of "representative" legislative bodies. They either ignore principles (over time, at least) or they mumble vague platitudes _intended_ to mean different things to different people. The bureaucrats who enforce the legislation almost uniformly disclaim that there _are_ any principles which matter.) > Every situation is different. So, IMO, it is important to provide > the IESG with substantial discretion to determine the right types of > mailing list control for each situation. I believe that our current > BCPs are much too restrictive in this regard. Margaret is absolutely right! And there _could_ be consensus to trust IESG with such discretion -- if we had the Principles straight. > However, we also need to remember that these cases are highly > emotionally charged, and often involve well-established IETF > participants on one side, such as WG chairs and ADs, and less > well-established participants on the other. Welcome to real-life... > There are a lot of things that we hope that our WG chairs and > mailing list administrators will try before considering a suspension > of posting priveleges, such as meeting with the individual(s) > involved and trying to work through the issues that are causing > disruption. ADs also tend to get involved in those discussions, > and by the time an individual situation comes to the attention of the > IESG, the WG chairs and ADs involved may be tired of the issue, > frustrated or angry with the offending participant and/or impatient > for action to be taken. Bingo! This is why most bodies create a procedure where such questions go before a body of folks who were _not_ involved earlier, and expect anyone who _was_ involved to recuse themselves. > The involved ADs may also feel that a negative decision on the > proposed action may be seen as insulting or insensitive to the WG > chairs being affected by a participant's behaviour. ... which, in fact, it is. It's absolutely typical for the WGC chair at that point to think (and perhaps say), "If you won't support me, I'm outta here." > It is not expected that the involved ADs will recuse themselves > from discussion or voting on these issues, (While a practice of recusal would be good, I don't mean to propose it, and I'm not at all sure it would help.) > and it is quite possible (I don't think it has happened, but it > could happen) for these factors to lead to a lynch mob mentality. (I don't believe that has happened, either. But Margaret is right to worry about the danger.) > Because of the emotional nature of these situations, I think that > we need some well-understood principles and processes to guide the > actions of the IESG in these situations, and to provide some > framework for appeals by the targets of these actions in the event > that those principles and processes are violated. I agree (surprise!). But I'd really like to get across that IESG members should see this -- not only because they're good people, but because Sam's proposal would put them in a position which would detract from their ability to accomplish their more-important functions. > So, I think that the community needs to determine the right balance > between defined processes and IESG discretion, and I personally > think that this document errs too far on the side of complete IESG > discretion than would be appropriate for a long term solution. Margaret doesn't say so, but I sense she may be wondering whether Sam's proposal would _stay_ short-term. Listening to the GENAREA meeting led me to believe other IESG members also wonder... I, to tell truth, do not believe it would stay short-term, though I was willing to put a lot of work into trying to keep it so. But we don't need to seek consensus on that question. Even as a short-term measure, Sam's proposal would saddle the IESG with legislative responsibilities (which Harald, BTW, so correctly pointed out we have never before saddled it with). _That_ is why Sam's proposal is a bad idea. However distateful BCP83 indefinite-suspension may be, however much DoS we must suffer from P-R action requests, however foolish we may look arguing whether Jefsey is a "bad person", saddling an already overworked IESG with legislative responsibilities is _not_ the right solution. (If nobody else will, I'm willing to do an I-D proposing an experiment to restore the increasing-length suspensions we had before BCP83.) Contrariwise, I'd be quite happy to start discussing Principles; but I will restrain myself until I see an actual interest in such a discussion. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf