Re: [Last-Call] Re: L2 posting rights restriction

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 11 June 2024 00:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 8243FC1F588E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com
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 zRKHLQd_1cZW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2d.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C75C180B5B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2d.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6b064c4857dso14717746d6.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1718065103; x=1718669903; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SiODH2OvhCN8vwWktt9Df38Sn/puh+JGhTdPmEc3jHU=; b=em1eatCrx4VUlFsF56ZHViCCZ03yBBKTwl+ReGzkgd7fQUs/D4u2KR2RbKmoEMmqzn HlctPXm4eePgVv4to1kDaL4RwSI+LXg5zS9zEzbP5bwRNxvQBjRvy0nRNGmBiS1ig5M7 KbaLczm/eoIkjmKubyCbWr3c/zBZrMJ8HtT8JPlFSZUEcAcNANZwGXKdNt1Gy0RY6j/4 vYAwDHoMt1bBhILltPKo92goX9XNIWdjoTrxxgxCWN71w3tE+O3iXmALYDFpvY9DYaF5 1hm0zzbzpVwE4MHCn7ShllZU883wJD0T/+bsBL0Fz38ygWoVvrMeHf8jFJxFcT9KYB8T b6qQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718065103; x=1718669903; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=SiODH2OvhCN8vwWktt9Df38Sn/puh+JGhTdPmEc3jHU=; b=mjWcfuKEXO0YzBl7DIc1YZg98uMoH8CHSCfrJbgHXne7BJOSSqm3zoN7SaUlIFClaa C1Yv6ZO4WSZAiWeo6viafYTw3+PrB7MbRf79BDn+SXM+SAu26C9yQwlq2+rZxGpaDXC2 dWZRctnvT/uWRUMAVKeZ5TEKiYPSTWl20L6hWyKrKrKfc5ZLG7yjM0gR+vdjLOnBga/O yuBXjZS1MgWBxGZc3ZTzj5CqiDRpKln2LnNxxp8ABhfIT/p0QBt79rsyVW1dJLecvDr4 5LZWdZMnKBHjEJDRmeq0nh3BCccs3UfD0cKZghRJuZF2vTO2Eh6Budrg5Hx/Tban4zY9 fUUA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXW0Guxkc1cV92Ontm4MZKPVBL96EWd/n2ablpPMBUUQRdptY3PtTPJ6HuukmdRvNBkmo2WdXyjKn+y46gX
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw6CAzSF7DFN+Bpp4A9xgcSak5eP295asGDs0ug1VWM23uF2r7Y mvw/iVFGOzPb4pC4W2YxRNa5tqHEC+i2yLv8MBFZMJo3vlPczQuaaATFYroTfWv0QTEDUOK+J/1 rAOfFUstCnKtXWAuxGHvP8LwtOXTcKOTQKGKLFw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGK0Duh4mK/GMSq1rPiP0b7bnmMmVYXrJaSSqSAafwxbPLM9fPLIBGsZnjuF7wijLS1eu2fh+fDeZIcnbwKLYU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2f02:b0:6b0:87cd:fdd6 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6b087cdfffbmr30039886d6.55.1718065103090; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d313e788911ca806439c286970637b24@ietf.org> <20240610134224.GL29907@miplet.aaaaa.org> <CACJ6M16tJx26Pz4f__X3_YUCH+AhdySGUt11PQRN4RpB3xNWvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nvWEtF1gm5vq3ewZv6CBVtZaqpfSZd3mYGwQ-aGB902w@mail.gmail.com> <cb8c8a58-41c5-4bf1-8879-8333cca24692@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cb8c8a58-41c5-4bf1-8879-8333cca24692@gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:18:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=TQmn1UT9WbVaC2wXb9dD+r_KPeUwf1Nzpg7MHFKWULw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Re: L2 posting rights restriction
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002bd948061a9234a3"
Message-ID-Hash: YVRBZUXVLXEBXYAL5R26Q6IHYEWN2LA2
X-Message-ID-Hash: YVRBZUXVLXEBXYAL5R26Q6IHYEWN2LA2
X-MailFrom: mellon@fugue.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, Moderators <moderators@ietf.org>, Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
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>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YiSLGUY4AhALE1QUVzoyEP7O0xU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-leave@ietf.org>

What I mean by moderation is that the posts of a person who has
demonstrated even a single instance of apparently antisocial posting are
blocked until they can be reviewed by a moderator, one by one. I don’t mean
that someone steps in once after a pattern of abusive behavior has
continued for multiple exchanges over a day or more.

Regarding the rules, I very much meant what I said there: if you are
socially competent, I’m sure the rules are quite clear, but for someone who
is not, figuring out what behaviors are okay and what aren’t is hard: my
go-to is simply to never do anything that I can even conjecture might
violate one of these rules or ever make anyone in any way uncomfortable.
And I still screw up. So simply dismissing my comment about this feels
pretty unhelpful, although I realize it may seem a bit off-topic. I think
being clear, giving examples, etc, might actually be useful for some
participants. It might even prevent some people from getting angry and
acting out, which was my point.

Op ma 10 jun 2024 om 17:00 schreef Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>

> Why was this thread on the last-call list? It's not about a last call.
>
> On 11-Jun-24 04:05, Ted Lemon wrote:
> ...
> > I would say that this PR-action is too little
>
> Read BCP 83. It is *indefinite* unless revoked, and all list managers may
> apply it at their discretion. How is that too little? It allows the IETF to
> completely muzzle somebody.
>
> > , too late.
>
> Possibly, but anybody could have requested the IESG to do this sooner, but
> nobody did.
>
> ...
>
> > Right now we don't actually have any sort of formal moderation process,
>
> Huh? That's exactly what the moderators just did.
>
> ...
>
> > I would say our current harassment policy is actually fairly vague.
>
> I think the Ombudsteam would beg to differ, but in any case this isn't an
> anti-harassment action; that's a separate pathway.
>
> On 11-Jun-24 04:07, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> > Oh, one additional point: a PR-action shouldn't be per-mailing list.
>
> It isn't. It allows all list managers to block the sender.
>
> On 11-Jun-24 04:34, Chris Box wrote:
>
> > Last year many former IETF Chairs proposed such an IETF-wide moderation
> scheme:
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ecahc-moderation-00.html
>
> We did. But moderation would still start with the WG Chairs - a single
> team cannot feasibly moderate all lists. Maybe this needs to be in the
> gendispatch/alldispatch list.
>
>     Brian
>
>
>
>
>