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

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

IMO the issue for each list/group making sure there is someone reading all
messages and analysing the details. What is the status anti-abuse-system
performance percentage of success per time?
I think there can be possibilities that IETF WG-chair/who-responsible-for
abuse-solving is not following the group-conversation on his/her list/room
to solve abuse situation on time.
Is IETF able to read all messages and analyse them quickly enough?

After I know the answer from management of the past performance, we can
think to discuss public identifications of responsible persons. I am not
sure if identification increases the system performance or decreases.

Best Wishes,
AB


On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 10:05 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi.  I contemplated just sending this to the IESG but it may
> need broader community discussion.
>
> As I think we all know, someone occasionally posts inappropriate
> messages to an IETF-provided mailing list, sometimes attacking
> the person who posted an earlier message to the list and not
> their ideas.  Sometimes those public attacks are followed by
> private ones that might even be threatening.  Of course, that
> sort of  behavior violates at least the intent of the code of
> conduct and, under certain circumstances, the anti-harassment
> policies.
>
> It is not clear what we can do about the off list attacks, but
> we should not facilitate them and, where practical, should be
> offering assistance to mitigate them.
>
> When such transactions involve this list (the main IETF
> discussion one), there is a sergeant-at-arms team with whom
> issues can be raised.  When it is on a WG list, my understanding
> is that WG Chairs are charged with ensuring good behavior.
> However, it is not clear what should what the model is for
> non-WG lists and who is accountable if bad behavior occurs and
> is either very egregious or persists.  My recollection (maybe
> wrong) is that we used to identify the responsible parties for
> such lists.  Now, it seems that many such lists contain only a
> footer that says the equivalent of:
>
>    XXX list run by XXX-owner at ietf.org
>
> In the interest of transparency and accountability, shouldn't
> the people involved in managing such a list be identified?  If
> they post to the lists they are "running", their names and email
> addresses are exposed, so their participation and identities are
> not secret, only their responsibilities.  It is reasonable that
> correspondence about the list go to a different address than
> their ordinary one(s), but that does not require hiding their
> names either.
>
> Would it be reasonable to replace the line/ template above with
> something more like:
>
>   XXX list maintained by Jane Jones and Joe Smith, contact
> address [e-mail]
>
> (I object to "run" for other reasons, but don't feel strongly
> about it in this context if others prefer it.)
>
> 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?
>
> thanks,
>    john
>
>
>