Re: Perils of Last Minute Change (Was: RE: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review ofdraft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt)

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

The tracker tracks....

the RFC Editor note was modified (by me) on July 24, 2004. The reason 
was a comment from Ted Hardie on July 21, augumenting a DISCUSS from 
Steve Bellovin:

Steve (DISCUSS):

 >he last paragraph of Section 2 should explain the relationship of this 
document to RFC 3683.

Ted (Comment):

 >I agree with Steve, and would have entered the same DISCUSS.  But I'll 
go one better and
 >suggest text.  Here's the current:
 >
 >However, further
 >    disruptive behavior by the same individual will be considered
 >   separately and may result in further warnings or suspensions.  Other
 >    methods of mailing list control, including longer suspensions, must
 >    be approved by the IESG or carried out in accordance with other
 >    IESG-approved procedures.
 >
 >
 >I suggest adding the following added sentence:  See BCP83 (RFC 3683)
 >for on set of procedures already defined and accepted by the community.
 >
 >I also think the sentence above should be changed a bit, to reflect the
 >idea that it is IETF approved procedures that result in suspensions, 
rather
 >than IESG approved suspensions.  New suggestion
 >
 >    Other methods of mailing list control, including longer 
suspensions, must
 >    be approved by the IESG and carried out in accordance with other
 >    IETF-approved procedures.  See BCP83 (RFC 3683 for one set of 
procedures
 >    already defined and accepted by the community.

Apparently Ted's proposal found favour with the IESG of that time.

                             Harald

Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> 
>There is an interesting lesson to be learned from our mailing list
>management situation...
>
>The mailing list procedures draft currently under discussion
>(draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt) contains the following correct
>assessment of our current mailing list management situation:
>
>   "RFC 3934 [RFC3934] amends RFC 2418 and grants the working group chair
>   the ability to suspend a member's posting rights for 30 days.
>   However it appears to remove the ability of the AD and IESG to
>   approve longer suspensions or alternative procedures: "Other methods
>   of mailing list control, including longer suspensions, must be
>   carried out in accordance with other IETF-approved procedures."  An
>   argument could be made that the amendment was not intended to remove
>   the already-approved procedures in RFC 2418 although a perhaps
>   stronger argument can be made that the actual textual changes  have
>   the effect of removing these procedures."
>
>Unfortunately, this problem was introduced during IESG and/or RFC Editor
>processing of RFC 3934.  The last published I-D (the one circulated for IETF
>LC) said:
>
>    "Other
>    methods of mailing list control, including longer suspensions, must
>    be approved by the IESG or carried out in accordance with other
>    IESG-approved procedures."
>
>I was the author of this draft, but I no longer remember how/when this
>change was introduced.  Someone from the IESG or RFC Editor might be able to
>tell from checking their records, but the change isn't mentioned in the
>public tracker.
>
>BTW, I am not disavowing responsibility for this change.  I have every
>reason to believe that I, as author of the RFC in question, was asked my
>opinion...  
>
>Margaret
>
>
>
>  
>


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