Sam,
On 15/03/2015 05:12, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Brian> On 14/03/2015 14:39, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Brian> ...
> >> If the community thinks that if you're excluded from meetings,
> >> you're also excluded from mailing lists, that's pretty much fatal
> >> for any IETF management position I've ever served in (WG draft
> >> editor, WG chair, IAB member, and AD). So, that's definitely
> >> worth discussing.
>
> Brian> I think it is necessary to treat these two things as
> Brian> orthogonal. If someone has been misbehaving in personal
> Brian> dealings with one or more individuals, that is very different
> Brian> from misbehaving in public on a mailing list. So I don't see
> Brian> why sanctions intended to prevent* face-to-face personal
> Brian> dealings would naturally carry over into sanctions that
> Brian> prevent public mailing list misbehaviour. Also, we already
> Brian> have the latter, and running code to show that they are
> Brian> implementable (unlike the recall procedure).
>
> Under your reading of 06, does the Ombudsteam have the ability to
> exclude someone from a mailing list?
I think they do, because of the following text:
At the other end of the spectrum the Ombudsteam could decide that
the Respondent is no longer permitted to participate in a
particular IETF activity, for example,...
Exclusion from meetings is only given as an example, so exclusion from
mailing lists is not ruled out. All I'm saying is that it's orthogonal
to meetings. Since "a remedy is not to be imposed for the purposes of
retribution" it should presumably not be imposed if it's irrelevant to
the misbehaviour.
Brian