Re: List moderator action

[Chris Box <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 at 10:23, Simon Josefsson <simon=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> The same advice could be given to the policy makers and moderators of
> this list.  What is the goal of banning DJB from making these posts?
>

In this case, my goal is to avoid continued disruptive derivative rights
claims, as defined by IESG Statement on Clarifying Derivative Works Rights
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-derivative-works-rights/>.
If DJB posts to the list without such a notice then it would be allowed
through, unless of course a different community-defined line is crossed.


> I don't understand what the moderators hope to achieve here.  It seems

weird that the moderator action does not even cite what policy grants
> them the authority to make their decision.
>

It's my fault for not being clear about that when acting. Let me try to
remedy that now.

RFC 3934 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934.html> gives WG chairs the
ability to restrict posting for 30 days following disruption and warnings.
IESG Statement on Disruptive Posting
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-statement-on-disruptive-posting-20060217/>
extends
the RFC3934 power to administrators of non-WG lists.
RFC 9245 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9245.html> grants the
moderators administrative authority over the [e-mail] list.
IESG Statement on Clarifying Derivative Works Rights
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-derivative-works-rights/>
defines
which derivative rights claims are disruptive.

I hope that makes it clear?

Chris