Re: Terminology discussion threads

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:30:14AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
> 
> On 8/14/2020 9:44 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Thanks Paul. Well, said.
> >
> > Despite the long history of the IETF discussion list being awful, I've
> > felt an obligation to stay on it. However, it has now become so bad
> > that I can longer do so.
> >
> > I would like to thank the IESG for creating the last call list so
> > that it is still possible to participate in the business of the IETF
> > without being part of this toxic environment. I'll see you there
> > and in the WGs.
> 
> There is something systemic here. We see that behavior too many times. I
> was at the receiving end of similar abuses during the RFC-ED discussions
> last year and I feel the pain for Alissa, but there are many more
> examples. The IETF list functions as some kind of general assembly, but
> without any rules of order. The loudest voices dominate the stream and
> skew the consensus, which encourages a loudest-voice behavior and
> discourages consensus building.
> 
> The question is, what to do?

The IETF way would seem to be to write up several drafts with various
proposals and solicit comments.  Options could include:

- just shut it down
- rate-limit all posters
- create a new role specifically tasked with deescalation and
  consensus-building
- your idea here

-Ben