Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 9/1/19 7:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> And, fwiw, in the light of what we have learned from the
> discussions leading up to RFC 7776 and the ombudsteam, it
> appears to me that 3005 is in significant need of revision to
> reflect the different roles or public and private comments, to
> clarify that the SAA role should not be seen as keeping as much
> traffic as possible off the IETF list, probably to clarify what
> traffic is appropriate without turning that into absolute rules,
> to at least consider whether disruptive behavior on the IETF
> list is different from disruptive behavior elsewhere in the IETF
> and, if it is not, where the SAA mechanism is the best way to
> deal with it, and, just as we have done with the ombudsteam, to
> take precautions about weaponizing the SAA function.  But I hope
> we can get though the present discussion without going there.

I'm also getting the impression that there need to be explicit 
constraints on the SAA, and also some kind of transparency and 
accountability, to keep the SAA from having a chilling effect on 
discussion of matters relevant to IETF - technical protocol standards, 
publication of such standards, and the running of the organization itself.

But yeah, hopefully we don't have to revise it just to address the 
current situation.

Keith