Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting

At 09:35 17/02/2006, IETF Chair wrote:
>The IESG today makes the following statement, but will welcome
>community feedback on it.

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
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf