Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification for draft-ecahc-moderation-00.txt

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Sun, 16 July 2023 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C956C14CE46 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uNG7V37GDQ64 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:1829::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307A5C14CF1B for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (93-103-214-60.dynamic.t-2.net [93.103.214.60]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 706656600BE; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 00:33:05 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.600.7\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMwthcU7SQXqYo-O9MHDzRXk6QJXqz_qb2d9BQeXgaeWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 23:32:54 +0200
Cc: "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EEEF2745-6091-4953-AC56-175D4772F5A5@piuha.net>
References: <168866528948.9864.11683631235677115587@ietfa.amsl.com> <C923D27E-85C3-4E57-A7D1-7850F0D82703@eggert.org> <F588647C-A9E1-40EF-8F7A-648221C5FAA3@akamai.com> <CABcZeBMxq0BCMqTZ49BB=W+ka1X1uLxd5HjcfKmeQ5i3TZWWFw@mail.gmail.com> <F5DB78AB-A5D8-408A-956D-8599DD6B9641@mnot.net> <798e2268-9035-222a-8d9a-0c723ddd2acc@gmail.com> <CABcZeBMwthcU7SQXqYo-O9MHDzRXk6QJXqz_qb2d9BQeXgaeWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, johnl@taugh.com, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.600.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/CoY-6iW4E80Ieskde2iBOwCnys0>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification for draft-ecahc-moderation-00.txt
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 21:33:13 -0000

Ekr, Brian, Mark, John, Rich:

Thanks a lot! Several responses:

First off, I really liked Ekr your suggestion of keeping moderation discussion/feedback in a separate location from the technical WG discussion. We should do that.

And interesting viewpoints about the role of WG chairs vs. moderation team. Yes, that’s for me one of the biggest open questions in this proposal. I liked how Brian you described your opinion on that. I think the WG chairs should have a continuing role in moderation for practical presence, field of expertise, and scaling reasons. And no, there’s no need to have exactly the same model in all working groups.

Ekr and Mark, you also raised the question of who (the team, or the IAB/IESG, or the community) is the final arbiter of what’s the right policy. And whether the moderation powers would somehow change from current RFCs. I agree these are good questions. I don’t have a great answer for them though, at least not at the moment. I think this draft grew more from the point of view of how to organize things (one team vs. many siloed individuals) than from the need to change what the potential moderation actions are.

24x7 responsiveness. I think that’s probably something that comes from the types of ietf@ietf.org mailing list and others with similar characteristics. I don’t think a typical WG mailing list has that need.

RFC 2119 language question from John: Yes, I agree with you.

Ekr: I agree with you that contacts to the ombudsteam should be confidential. I also agree that the no-IAB-or-IESG members clause should be a MUST. And yes, there needs to be a way to replace moderators as needed.

Rich: I think the wording about bringing a disagreement with IETF Chair to ”their” attention means bringing it to the IETF Chair’s attention. And in my opinion it is always a good idea to bring a disagreement to the attention of the person you disagree with. For instance, if you disagree with me, maybe I made a mistake and can reconsider. If that doesn’t happen then you can proceed to a more formal action relevant for the case.

Jari, speaking just for myself