Re: BCP 83 PR actions and new media

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 09 November 2022 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63085C14CE27; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 14:52:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-g2LaEwgseN; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 14:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEB41C14CE24; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 14:52:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1ostvM-000Kzg-R5; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 17:52:00 -0500
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 17:51:54 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Samuel Weiler <weiler@csail.mit.edu>, iesg@ietf.org
cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: BCP 83 PR actions and new media
Message-ID: <129F1F9FCCF75062D026AD86@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <e9c50be7-3dcf-cdf5-005b-f46a0777b04a@w3.org>
References: <e9c50be7-3dcf-cdf5-005b-f46a0777b04a@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/W0x-n8gSh8kjIgIergBg4VWG9yc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 22:52:07 -0000


--On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 13:31 -0500 Samuel Weiler
<weiler@csail.mit.edu> wrote:

> Colleagues,
> 
> Do PR actions also apply to other-than-email IETF
> communications such as Github, Slack, Zulip, and whatever new
> collaboration technologies we adopt in the future?
> 
> I propose that they should and that we should not need to
> revise BCP 83 every time we add a new collaboration
> technology, and I'm hoping you agree with me.
> 
> As history, RFC 3683 was published in March 2004, around the
> same time the IETF was actively working on Jabber.

Sam, 

To add to your list (and to Keith's comment about scope), are
people to whom BCP 83 has been applied allowed to post
Internet-Drafts?  To register for meetings? To be
Nomcom-eligible?  In particular, if something said in an I-D can
be used as part of the rationale for a PR-action (it is not
completely clear to me whether or not that should be the case),
then certainly such an action should be able in include cutting
off I-D posting privileges or at least subjecting I-Ds to
aggressive moderation).  And, to borrow a note from today's
discussion in ELEGY, if someone is abusive and disruptive enough
on one or more mailing lists to justify a PR-action, inviting
them to a meeting (possibly even with a fee waiver) where they
can be abusive or disruptive f2f, at a room microphone, and/or
over Meetecho would not make obvious sense.

While I think answers to those questions (including yours and
Keith's) are probably important, it is probably even more
important that we ask the questions and be clear about rules and
expectations rather then trying to make things up the next time
a proposed PR-action case comes along.

best,
   john