On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 04:39:39AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > So, I have to repeat the question that someone else asked: aren't > you just proposing to have the sergeant-at-arms job performed > more aggressively? (Not that I am criticising Jordi in any way - > he has been limiting himself to fairly extreme cases, and he's been > dinged for doing even that minimum.) >From what Stephen said, no. Instead, it sounds like the plan is to appoint some people as behaviour moderators, who are specifically looking for early signs of bad behaviour and who will, doubtless, first call out such behaviour privately, then publicly; only later will the Sergeant-at-Arms be invoked, and it is hoped that doesn't become necessary. I suppose that in practice what's really being admitted is that we're not doing this ourselves already informally, and this is a way to formalize that sort of desirable social pressure without acutally creating more Official Jobs and Procedures. I like that aspect of this proposal, because I don't think that bullies and so on are effectively controlled by elaborate rules but are quite effectively handled by the right sorts of social pressure. The danger, of course, is that we end up with a group of self-satisfied smuggies who turn into the new IETF bully class. Presumably, the rest of us will still have a job to do in preventing that. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx