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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

I've read the draft. I may be misunderstanding it but ISTM
an overall bad idea to have a moderator team as proposed
that aims to cover all IETF interactions. Better to face up
to the need for WG chairs to do that as needed, and keep in
mind that the "as needed" criteria will differ from WG to
WG and possibly even by interaction medium.

The draft itself notes that we don't have agreement as to
what may be disruptive, so creating a fake "agreement" (the
de-facto processes followed by the putative small team) will
likely lead to more disruption than we face now.

I would also envisage this creating a situation where the
most sensitised IETF participants (for any given topic) will
feel obliged to "inform" on others to the moderation team
which is not a good situation to set up for many reasons.

I think it's good to discuss this problem but strongly oppose
what I understand to be the proposed solution. (The two
reasons above are not the full set of reasons I'd oppose
this - I'm sure I can think of more:-)

Cheers,
S.