IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Harassment, abuse, accountability. and IETF mailing lists

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 02 June 2022 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA01C15AAC5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 17:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=sandelman.ca
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 7UaflXQGQ6LN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 17:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2AF5C14F607 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 17:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740C739136; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 20:46:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4G-DaIYDaER5; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 20:46:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA5F39103; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 20:46:06 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1654130766; bh=MZjuK+FXclWJqynhKIkvcDWr0U5NC2RxvJG8x5KLKeU=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=i+ByAkyvcGsbpf7pjtXlyUxuSr0s4X6wD0dtmlp63p7LIXICSH8s5R3+BcKc49NvN IsApIjR4aX868UPI7lDGNrWzmCsl+VMfsoNZZmCsFiS8Lwr3vAfmvmT1kJffRynEUv e/TV+oDG2RYys/AcWcowHcufJNzhSbhkvSK/7teWXVzzAwGEJrk6tnR43mlwm1OqrO FK9irB+4E3sXYA5uOsvJ2bEW26rGZjYStpmW3wGJ+qn9e6zgK7zfk4CnT8vw05vC80 M04vAwgkY5jLm9XyBtNkp0MtrBwLWHjUMyH4YRnkmpodRnRBgk+j2nKSYpPK0cFv7x gvHRyOM6zFvWA==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B0765F; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 20:31:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Harassment, abuse, accountability. and IETF mailing lists
In-Reply-To: <452764b0-a758-874a-2ce5-122f9d0de763@gmail.com>
References: <16C5EC99A155D55344E1F195@PSB> <5a53fa11-8138-2261-0e30-ae603b064cc8@network-heretics.com> <452764b0-a758-874a-2ce5-122f9d0de763@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2022 20:31:11 -0400
Message-ID: <15505.1654129871@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-j2fkCO868VN8Ort8veJ2caGwG0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 00:31:19 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On 02-Jun-22 08:45, Keith Moore wrote:
    >> On 6/1/22 16:04, John C Klensin wrote:
    >>
    >>> Or is it the IETF's position that no one is actually responsible
    >>> for monitoring the appropriateness of content on non-WG lists or
    >>> accountable for doing, or not doing, that?

    > I suspect that the position is that there is, formally, no position.

I think that what John is saying is that the "appeal" path for non-WG
lists is unclear to the participants.
(I use "appeal" in quotes, because really, it's about to dispute,
anti-harassement and code of conduct process)

    > So the missing link seems to be an IESG Statement that absent any other
    > provision, the administrators of a non-WG list should fulfill the role
    > described in RFC3934 (part of BCP24).

    >> "Monitoring the appropriateness" seems like overkill, and it would seem
    >> to mean that not only would there need to be a designated person or
    >> people for every single IETF list, but also that said person or people
    >> should be promptly reading every message in every such conversation.

    > Yes. Shouldn't anybody tagged as a list admin be doing that anyway?

You'd think so, but people sometimes forget which lists are theirs.
And I've noticed that some WG lists aren't even well monitored by the chairs.
(Yes, I complain)

    >> enforce prejudices, with even less potential to correct them when they
    >> run amok.

    > Which, I believe, is exactly why the backstop mechanisms we have in place for
    > WG list abuse should apply here too. I think John has identified that at
    > the moment, we have no backstop.

Yes.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email