Re: Notice of moderator intervention

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I do not speak for the moderators, or for the current policy.

However, there is significant value in heading off potential problems 
before they rise to the level of prompting complaints. The moderators 
chose to send an early, polite, off-list, warning. Without commenting on 
the substance of the message being dealt with, that is a very important 
early step in the process.  Rich asked, as his is right, that it be sent 
to the list.  So they did.  All proper.  On other lists, I could well 
imagine a working group chair sending a similar note.   For this list, 
the moderation team has that job.

Yours,

Joel

On 5/7/2026 11:19 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> which the Moderators team considers uncivil commentary [4] for belittling a list participant....
> I don't find Rich's comment and metaphor particularly uncivil.  I
> question the judgement of the moderators.
>
> Is it safe to say the Moderators stepped in without being asked?  It
> seems to me Dr. Bernstein has thick skin and can handle himself.  I'm
> guessing Bernstein did not ask for intervention.
>
> There's a lot to be said about Gen-Z and their psychological defects
> due to growing up with smart phones and social media.  In particular,
> Gen-Z lacks problem resolution skills and hypersensitivity to
> criticism.  We don't owe them anything, and we don't have to work
> around their problems.
>
> Perhaps the moderators should stay in their lane until a real dispute
> arises or asked to intervene.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 10:53 AM Chris Box <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Rich has requested that we share the following off-list intervention with you.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Chris Box <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 at 14:29
>> Subject: Your message to the IETF list
>> To: Salz, Rich <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: IETF Moderators <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Rich,
>>
>> I am writing to you on behalf of the Moderators team for [e-mail]. This message has been vetted with others on the Moderators team, which is described in more detail at [1] and [2].
>>
>> We are reaching out to you because of your recent message to [e-mail] [3]. The message contained the following language:
>>
>> The playground has rules. If you choose not to follow them and push some other kid off the swing because you want your turn NOW, then the teacher will give you a time out. Go read Robert Fulgham.
>>
>> which the Moderators team considers uncivil commentary [4] for belittling a list participant. Please try to avoid using this kind of language on [e-mail] in the future. We are happy to discuss suggestions for how to convey the same message in an appropriate way if you would like to discuss that. As a reminder, RFC7154 asks that participants extend respect and courtesy to their colleagues at all times, and have impersonal discussions.
>>
>> We consider this an initial suggestion. We do not believe your message is part of a pattern of abuse that would warrant the restriction of your posting rights. If we see such a pattern emerge, we will get back in touch with you to suggest that you voluntarily take a break from posting to the list.
>>
>> If you wish for us to make this message public, please let us know and we will re-send it with [e-mail] on cc.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris Box on behalf of the Moderators team for [e-mail]
>>
>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/
>> [2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9245.html
>> [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M5P3emAO3ULqAAoiDT7aOcTSAN4/
>> [4] https://github.com/ietf/Moderators/blob/main/uncivil-commentary.md