RE: IESG Statement on disruptive posting

["JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Eric,
I certainly agree with all your synthesis.
I just want to clarify about the lists "I would know".

There are lists which may have a receive "considerable discretionnary 
powers" such as IANA registry reviewers. They need authority. Such 
lists are the lists I considered. After all ICANN is only a "list" 
for reviewing names and numbers which developped.

As a general rule I think there should be simple consistency. Brian's 
document gives the owner of a list the same capacity as a WG Chair. A 
WG is created by a Charter proposed by someone (as for the non-WG 
lists), but approved by the IESG and reviewed by the IAB. To be on 
the non-WG list you need an AD approval. I suggest that the lists 
wanting to have access to RFC 3934 simply asks for an IESG approval. 
I am sure ADs can easily make a difference.

At 18:56 20/02/2006, Gray, Eric wrote:

>Sam,
>
>         I re-inserted JFC's original text below.
>
>         Just to be clear, it looks as if JFC has some misunderstanding
>of IETF mailing lists, or - perhaps - knows of IETF mailing lists I
>am not aware of.  Also, most of the "formality" he points out is both
>reasonable, and not in disagreement with your later reply to JFC's
>apparent response to you (I have not seen his response, so either it
>did not get to the list, or it was off-line).
>
>         For example, when JFC says that there is a need to define who
>is what, he has a valid point.  I moderate the MPLS mailing list, but
>there are others who are authorized to do so as well - including the
>ADs and WG Chairs.  I assume this is true of other mailing lists as
>well, and I do not think that it is obvious to everyone who is on the
>list of people with authority to manage each list.
>
>         Later, when JFC makes the comment that Brian's terminology use
>is not consistent (Brian says "the moderators or maintainers of IETF
>mailing lists that are not WG mailing lists" in the beginning of his
>message and "where the administrators are listed" later on), I think
>he is providing a reasonable example of how this might not be clear.
>If Brian is in fact talking about listed adminstrators, then JFC's
>comment is already addressed.
>
>         In talking about a decision to suspend anyone for "disruptive
>posting", it seems JFC is being reasonable in saying that a decision
>should name the AD consulted - assuming that the decision is formally
>announced or that a formal notification is required (since the Brian
>explicitly states that an AD would be consulted).  Otherwise, it would
>be possible for any list manager to act unilaterally and he/she would
>only "get caught" if their decision is appealed.
>
>         I believe that at least a formal notification must occur and it
>must list those people involved in making the decision.  Otherwise, a
>decision such as this 1) may be in effect for some time before the
>individual becomes aware of it and 2) be completely non remediable in
>the case of wrong doing.
>
>         It would also be good from the list administrator's perspective
>if the notification was at least backed up by the consulted AD - if it
>does not in fact come from the consulted AD(s).
>
>         Finally, in making his point about "formal delegation", I think
>JFC believes that there may be IETF mailing lists to which this set of
>rules should not apply.  He may be right, if there are lists that are
>maintained by the IETF site that do not properly belong under IESG
>authority, or if there are lists maintained elsewhere that are kept on
>behalf of the IETF, but do not fall under IESG authority.  I don't know
>that such lists exist, but it is possible that they do.
>
>         Would BoF mailing lists fall into this category?
>
>         In any case, asssuming that JFC is not making an incorrect
>assumption, then he is correct in his assertion that there should
>be an announcement that "such-and-such" list now falls under the
>IESG authority and a similar one - but with reversed sense - should
>any list stop being under the IESG authority, at least within the
>context of Brian's announcement.
>
>         I do not think that such lists properly exist, but their (non)
>existence is what is at issue - rather than the formality of a list
>management process.
>
>         I believe the default assumption should be that any mailing
>list maintained at the IETF site falls naturally and formally under
>IESG authority.  However, how does this work for lists not actually
>maintained at the IETF mailing list site?
>
>         In your later reply to JFC's (invisible) mail, you said:
>
>         "The IAB said that we need to have clear and public
>         documentation of what we're doing.  So people need to
>         know what the rules are and need to know how to appeal
>         decisions and how to disagree with rules."
>
>I do not see a fundamental difference between what you say and
>what JFC said previously.
>
>--
>Eric
>
>
>--> -----Original Message-----
>--> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>--> On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
>--> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:19 PM
>--> To: Jefsey Morfin
>--> Cc: IETF Chair; [e-mail]
>--> Subject: Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting
>-->
>--> I think we disagree significantly on the level of formality needed
>--> here.
>-->
>
>Dear Brian,
>Comments embedded.
>
> >According to RFC 2418 as updated by RFC 3934, WG chairs have
> >the power to suspend disruptive posters on WG mailing lists for
> >periods of 30 days. However, this power is not documented
> >for the moderators or maintainers of IETF mailing lists that
> >are not WG mailing lists.
>
>There is a need for a definition of who is what. Typically a list may
>have several moderators ignored by its members.
>
> >  In the absence of a BCP or
> >RFC 3933 procedure to cover this case, and as part of its
> >responsibility under RFC 2026 to organize and manage the
> >Internet Standards process, the IESG has decided as follows:
> >
> >The administrators of such lists are authorized to suspend disruptive
> >posters for periods of not more than 30 days, typically after one or
> >more explicit and public warnings, and consultation with an Area Director.
>
>I understand the lack of definition of the Area. I suggest that
>decisions name the consulted Area Director.
>This decision is not complete. It should define who are to be on the
>appeal cycle.
>
> >Administrators may also follow the moderation guidelines at
> >http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt
> >
> >The list of IETF mailing lists that are not WG mailing lists
> >is maintained at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi
> >where the administrators are listed.
>
>Is it for a reason that you use "administrator" here and "moderators
>or maintainers" up there?
>This is a formal delegation of authority. A formal decision of the
>IESG to initially accept a non-WG list should be issued.
>This also means that when the purpose descirbed in the nwg_list is
>deprecated, the list loses its privileges without other decision.
>
>I hope this helps.
>jfc
>
>-->
>--> _______________________________________________
>--> Ietf mailing list
>--> [e-mail]
>--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>-->
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf