Re: Harassment, abuse, accountability. and IETF mailing lists

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 20:31 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > On 02-Jun-22 08:45, Keith Moore wrote:
>     >> On 6/1/22 16:04, John C Klensin wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> Or is it the IETF's position that no one is actually
> responsible     >>> for monitoring the appropriateness of
> content on non-WG lists or     >>> accountable for doing, or
> not doing, that?
> 
>     > I suspect that the position is that there is, formally,
> no position.
> 
> I think that what John is saying is that the "appeal" path for
> non-WG lists is unclear to the participants.
> (I use "appeal" in quotes, because really, it's about to
> dispute, anti-harassement and code of conduct process)

That is correct.   And, as Bob Hinden more or less pointed out,
if the rules for acceptable behavior on an IETF non-WG list are
different from those for WG lists and the IETF list... well that
would be a really unfortunate situation, especially since some
of those lists are used to review concepts or documents that may
ultimately become part of the standards process.

But it is a bit more than that.  If one assumes that the
"appeal" path is to contact the person "running" the particular
list, then is the potential appellant (and the community in
general) entitled to know who that person (or people) are?

>     > So the missing link seems to be an IESG Statement that
> absent any other     > provision, the administrators of a
> non-WG list should fulfill the role     > described in RFC3934
> (part of BCP24).

That is one of two missing things.  The other, at least IMO, is
identification of those administrators to the community or at
least to list subscribers.

>     >> "Monitoring the appropriateness" seems like overkill,
> and it would seem     >> to mean that not only would there
> need to be a designated person or     >> people for every
> single IETF list, but also that said person or people     >>
> should be promptly reading every message in every such
> conversation.

Agreed although, as mentioned below, I'd be a little bit
concerned if the responsible party (aka "administrator" in most
cases) for a list were not reading it regularly.  I am only
concerned about who someone goes to if they spot what appears to
be inappropriate behavior and whether those administrators (or
designees) are identified or completely hidden behind a role
address.

>     > Yes. Shouldn't anybody tagged as a list admin be doing
> that anyway?
> 
> You'd think so, but people sometimes forget which lists are
> theirs. And I've noticed that some WG lists aren't even well
> monitored by the chairs. (Yes, I complain)

See above.

>     >> enforce prejudices, with even less potential to correct
> them when they     >> run amok.
> 
>     > Which, I believe, is exactly why the backstop mechanisms
> we have in place for     > WG list abuse should apply here
> too. I think John has identified that at     > the moment, we
> have no backstop.
> 
> Yes.

Yes for me too.  And, again, I'm concerned for several reasons
about anonymous backstops.

   best,
    john