Re: Terminology discussion threads

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Hi Richard - inline

On 8/13/2020 4:31 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> RFC 3005 says plainly:
>
> """
>    Inappropriate postings include: ... Unprofessional commentary, 
> regardless of the general subject
>    The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms
>    appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person,
>    or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate
> """
>
> Given the level of unprofessional discourse in the muted conversation, 
> muting the entire topic seems like an entirely appropriate recourse.

Actually no.  3005 has at least two paths - abusive people and off-topic 
conversations.   The former is requires a specific person's postings to 
be identified and PR actions may be the appropriate response for those 
postings.  The latter is for things like "We should all go to RSA 
because...." and those are thread bans - generally without PR threats.

In my long (Meeting 1 on) experience with the IETF, I've never seen a 
chair ban a discussion that didn't fall in the second category.  I would 
have had no problem (or not much of a problem) with the SAA identifying 
a specific poster and a specific post that fell into the "Unprofessional 
commentary" category and giving them a warning.  That - to be very clear 
here - is NOT what happened here.

The chair may persuade or it may beg for cession of discussion on a 
topic.  It may not order, nor may the chair use the mechanism of 3005 to 
impose its will on a topic (vs a person).  3005 does not give the chair 
that authority, nor should we ever.

We've gone through probably dozens of these flare ups where the 
"leadership" says something controversial, and the "membership" pushes 
back. Once upon a time that resulted in the entire leadership structure 
being rebuilt into something new. Over time the discussion completes - 
either in an agreement, or due to exhaustion.  This case is no 
different.  How I wish that the IESG and the IAB and the Chair would 
stick to technical subjects and avoid proposing/directing 
politico-social changes.

I'm going to try and avoid commenting further here.  If you really feel 
you require a response though I'll provide it grudgingly.

Later, Mike



>
> --Richard
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 4:26 PM Michael StJohns <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 8/13/2020 3:48 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>     > At least there seems to be sufficient +1 from distinguished
>     community
>     > members such as current or past IAB, IESG members, IAB Liaison,
>     IETF ISOC
>     > appointee, IRTF and NomCom chair to hope that the action taken
>     was rightfully
>     > within the privilege of IETF chair according to the rules.
>
>     Mike StJohns, Past IAB, Past Nomcom Chair
>     Scott Bradner, Past IAB, Past Area Director
>     Randy Bush, Past Area Director
>     Charlie Perkins,  Past IAB
>
>     (sorry if I've missed other roles...)
>
>     So what's your point?
>
>     In any event, my opinion is that this action was NOT taken
>     "rightfully
>     within the privilege of the IETF chair according to the rules",
>     but I'm
>     withholding further judgement until the Chair responds to my
>     request to
>     clarify which part of 3005 they believe applies and grants
>     authority for
>     a mass PR threat.
>
>     >
>     > If this step was ultimately determined (by whom... ?) not to be
>     within
>     > the privilege of IETF chair then i am bit worried about what i would
>     > have to think about all those +1.
>
>     I'm not sure why.  Everyone has opinions.  Some are more useful than
>     others, and each of us will have an opinion on that topic as well.
>
>
>     Later, Mike
>
>
>
>