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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 19-Jul-23 13:09, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I just went to the archive and re-read all the messages on this topic.  I was mildly skeptical but had some questions. I found Stephen’s and Rob’s messages helpful in my rethinking this matter.
> 
> The draft proposes to have the IETF Chair pick a team, give them very powerful control over ALL IETF online communications, and not require the policy behind that control to go through any IETF process.  No thank you.

Let's pick that apart:

> have the IETF Chair pick a team

If that is a problem (which would imply a measure of distrust in the Chair, who is picked by a community process and trusted in many other ways), how do you think the team *should* be picked?

> give them very powerful control over ALL IETF online communications

No, they are given the right to moderate communications that (by some definition, see below) have become disruptive to ongoing dialogue. That isn't "control over all" of anything.

> not require the policy behind that control to go through any IETF process

The draft doesn't use the word policy, but refers to "a public set of moderation criteria, processes, actions, and other material." If you're arguing that this (especially the criteria) should be developed by a community rough consensus process, I'd agree with you. The next sentence says "The moderator team's criteria and processes SHALL be developed with community input..." Probably we should add that the IESG will judge whether there's rough consensus.
  
> The fact that all the authors are former IETF Chairs, with something like two decades of combined experience, worries me. I can only assume this draft comes from the years of personal hassle they had to deal with during the time in office.

I don't recall having to deal with anything I'd call "personal", if you mean ad hominem attacks. I did get a *lot* of email and some of it was disruptive. But the motivation for this draft is in the section of the draft called "Motivation" and I don't see any need to repeat it here.

      Brian