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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

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?
"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.

I'd like to think that it's sufficient if there be a person or people 
for each list to whom complaints can be directed, and who has some 
limited power to take corrective action.

More broadly, I still believe that IETF works better if the community 
can mostly police itself, and mostly set its own standards for behavior, 
rather than expecting that there should always be some parental figure 
to adjudicate every possible conflict.  I realize that there are 
limitations with community self-policing, including (quite importantly) 
that communities can harbor and enforce prejudices against certain kinds 
of individuals even without realizing that they're doing so.   So 
self-policing can never be entirely sufficient, but I believe it's a 
necessary component.   Because appointed individuals can also harbor and 
enforce prejudices, with even less potential to correct them when they 
run amok.

Keith