--On Friday, June 12, 2015 11:49 +0100 Dave Crocker
<dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 6/11/2015 12:04 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> The IETF model of insisting that anyone can participate and
>> that everyone who does participate does so strictly as an
>> individual
> ...
>> also avoids the advantages of enforceable rules, e.g., that
>> one either behaves like an adult professional or gets out (or
>> doesn't get in).
>...
> We have rules. We have been known to enforce them. The
> consequences can (and have) include banishment.
You may disagree but, when I describe the situation
"objectively" but from my perspective, I would restate the above
as: We have rules. They are mostly vague and subjective, but
probably that is inevitable. We almost never try to enforce
them when they appear to be violated, at least beyond private or
low-key requests/ advice that someone shape up. If someone
does not, the maximum penalty/ consequence/ community mechanisms
we have are denying someone posting rights to mailing lists and
requesting that they leave or not attend particular WG meetings.
Neither really constitutes banishment. We also have a recall
mechanism for removing people from leadership position who have
gotten out of hand, a mechanism that has never been used to the
point of actually removing someone from office. If used, that
mechanism would remove someone from a position, also well short
of banishment.
The use of PR bans under RFC 3683 could be objectively measured
with a bit of effort, but I'd guess those bans have been applied
to fewer than a handful of individuals. The use of recalls to
the point of petitions being handed to the ISOC President and at
least a Recall Committee Chair being appointed could also be
counted, but I'm fairly sure that the number would be even
smaller.
It seems to me that those objective measures can be interpreted
in two ways. One is that the rules (and potential for
enforcement to the extent it is needed at all) are working
really well, i.e., community and its participants are so well
behaved that nothing else is needed. One needs to wonder why,
if that were the case, Jari's note was needed and we need to be
spending so many cycles on this discussion thread. I think that
discussions on the IETF list that are about problems that don't
need solving are very expensive, but YMMD.
The other is that, in practice rather than theory, we don't have
effective rules and/or are either unwilling or unable to enforce
them (which was the point of that part of my note). In that
regard, I observe that at least one individual, and I think two,
who have had posting rights revoked routinely show up with
postings on various IETF lists, more or less replicating the
behavior for which those rights were revoked. If that is
"banishment", it is obviously not very effective.
> That we do not have entrance qualifiers does not in any way
> relate to whether we have suspension or termination rules,
> nevermind whether we enforce them.
No, it does not relate to whether we have such rules. I didn't
intend to say that it did. It does relate to how easily,
effectively, and conclusively those rules can be enforced, an
issue that has been discussed multiple times by others, most
notably Counsel during IPR applicability and enforcement
discussions. I usually still think the tradeoff in favor of a
more open and accessible process is worthwhile, but I don't
think it is useful to pretend that it doesn't have costs, both
along the dimensions discussed on this list and those that are
obvious to anyone who has had to listen to some long rant by
someone who has no knowledge or understanding about what the
rant is about.
> The core issues are that we do not adequately define
> unacceptable behavior and we do essentially no enforcement,
> except in the most extreme cases and for the most marginalized
> participant.
I agree with that, noting Ted's comment about it being _a_ core
issue. TO me, it is almost indistinguishable from what I said
in the note to which you objected.
FWIW, I also believe that we are far more often victim to
consensus by attrition than to direct interference with the
system or overt bad behavior. I am perhaps just getting more
sensitive with age, but I believe that pattern is on the rise.
Consequently that risk and the behavior patters that tend to
induce it appear to me to be core issues too.
john