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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Bob,

Thanks.  I agree and hope that is obvious.  My question was,
instead, was about (i) who has responsibility for enforcing
those rules for a non-WG list, e.g., discussing bad behavior
with those carrying it out and pushing them off the list for
short or longer periods of time if needed. and (ii) whether it
is reasonable that those people be identified rather than
hiding, however unintentionally, behind an [e-mail]
address.  

best,
   john


--On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 20:57 -0700 Bob Hinden
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> My take on this is that lists hosted by the IETF should have
> the same expectations about conduct.   The difference between
> w.g. and non-w.g. lists are impossible to detect externally
> from the list name.
> 
> If someone wants to create an IETF hosted list, then they
> should be willing to abide by a set of IETF rules about
> conduct (for example, the anti-harassment policies).   If
> someone wants to have a list that isn't covered by the IETFs
> rules, there are a very large number of other places to have
> it hosted.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 1, 2022, at 1:04 PM, John C Klensin
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi.  I contemplated just sending this to the IESG but it may
>> need broader community discussion.
>> 
>> As I think we all know, someone occasionally posts
>> inappropriate messages to an IETF-provided mailing list,
>> sometimes attacking the person who posted an earlier message
>> to the list and not their ideas.  Sometimes those public
>> attacks are followed by private ones that might even be
>> threatening.  Of course, that sort of  behavior violates at
>> least the intent of the code of conduct and, under certain
>> circumstances, the anti-harassment policies.
>> 
>> It is not clear what we can do about the off list attacks, but
>> we should not facilitate them and, where practical, should be
>> offering assistance to mitigate them.
>> 
>> When such transactions involve this list (the main IETF
>> discussion one), there is a sergeant-at-arms team with whom
>> issues can be raised.  When it is on a WG list, my
>> understanding is that WG Chairs are charged with ensuring
>> good behavior. However, it is not clear what should what the
>> model is for non-WG lists and who is accountable if bad
>> behavior occurs and is either very egregious or persists.  My
>> recollection (maybe wrong) is that we used to identify the
>> responsible parties for such lists.  Now, it seems that many
>> such lists contain only a footer that says the equivalent of:
>> 
>>   XXX list run by XXX-owner at ietf.org
>> 
>> In the interest of transparency and accountability, shouldn't
>> the people involved in managing such a list be identified?  If
>> they post to the lists they are "running", their names and
>> email addresses are exposed, so their participation and
>> identities are not secret, only their responsibilities.  It
>> is reasonable that correspondence about the list go to a
>> different address than their ordinary one(s), but that does
>> not require hiding their names either.
>> 
>> Would it be reasonable to replace the line/ template above
>> with something more like:
>> 
>>  XXX list maintained by Jane Jones and Joe Smith, contact
>> address [e-mail]
>> 
>> (I object to "run" for other reasons, but don't feel strongly
>> about it in this context if others prefer it.)
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> thanks,
>>   john
>> 
>> 
>