Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 11:03 AM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> --On Sunday, 02 October, 2022 10:33 -0700 Eric Rescorla
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >...
> > In particular, my experience is that it's far earlier to
> > address misbehavior early on with smaller interventions than
> > to wait until there is a long pattern of misbehavior and then
> > ban
> > someone. Nominally, we do have such mechanisms (SAA, etc.)
> > but, they have proven so difficult to apply that the nominally
> > last resort of the PR Action instead becomes in practice the
> > only resort in practice.
>
> Based on observations in recent months, I have somewhat more
> confidence in the SAA mechanism than you do although I would
> have agreed with you a couple of years ago,   As I said earlier
> today, I'm concerned about their perceptions of what they can or
> should do when the smaller and more private interventions (even
> publicly suspending someone from a particular list for a short
> time) fail, but a small bit of tuning would fix that.
>
> Situations in which all of the discretion --about whether to act
> and how-- is vested in a single WG chair or list maintainer
> without obligations to consult, e.g., either a co-chair or AD,
> may be another matter.   Without criticizing anyone, I tend to
> not trust any one person's judgment (including my own) in
> isolation or without consultation, especially if they perceive
> themselves as being abused.
>

Do you have some mechanisms in mind or are you merely speaking
in the abstract?

For instance, RFC 3934 explicitly requires the approval of the AD for
posting rights removal,
even for 30 days. Moreover, such a decision is appealable.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934#section-2

-Ekr