On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 23/07/2014 04:33, Jari Arkko wrote: >> Andrew, >> >>> Since we're clarifying, I'm wondering whether you mean moderation in >>> the way it usually does, or in the way it socially does. >>> >>> That is, is the plan to turn on the moderation feature of mailman? Or >>> is the plan instead to have a group of people who are basically much >>> more active seargents-at-arms, catching people when they go over the >>> line and then moderating those individuals quickly if things continue >>> to proceed? Your text seemed to suggest the latter, but in the >>> context of mailing lists "moderation" usually means the former. >> >> I was on the latter plan. Personally, and I think this is what the IESG wanted to see. > > 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.) No, the SaA is called in to deal with problems. The proposal here seems to be that the moderators would be pro-active and act on their own initiative.