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

On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 2:33 PM Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

> 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.
>

I think that's a great start and we can hash these questions out.

FWIW, my suggestion is that the IAB and the IESG should be the final
arbiter of
the right policy, but that the team should be given fairly broad discretion
to set policies and to act in individual cases.

I want to emphasize this last point because I think that the right way to
make
most moderation decisions is to have people exhibit judgement rather than to
have fine-grained rules that describe every form of prohibited conduct. The
latter almost inevitably leads to huge amounts of rules lawyering, which
then
makes it very hard to actually do any moderation. Rather, I think we should
allow
moderators to use their judgement within broad guidelines and with an
appeals
process as the backstop.

> 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.
>

This is my sense as well.

-Ekr

> 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
>
>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> Gendispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>