[Last-Call] IETF last call review of draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thank you all for the comments so far that have been received on BCP45.

I've noted 3 significant comments in the feedback received, and have some concrete proposed changes:


(1) To rename the SAA role to Moderator, whilst keeping the role the same.

To give a specific proposal:

OLD:

   A sergeant-at-arms (SAA) "is an officer appointed by a deliberative
   body (...) to keep order during its meetings" [SAA-WIKIPEDIA].  SAAs
   for the IETF discussion list are appointed by the IETF Chair and are
   empowered to restrict posting by a person, or of a thread, when the
   content is inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse.  They are
   encouraged to take into account the overall nature of the postings by
   an individual and whether particular postings are an aberration or
   typical.

NEW:

   Moderators (previously known as the sergeant-at-arms, or SAA),
   for the IETF discussion list are appointed by the IETF Chair and are
   empowered to restrict posting by a person, or of a thread, when the
   content is inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse.  They are
   encouraged to take into account the overall nature of the postings by
   an individual and whether particular postings are an aberration or
   typical.

// Other references in this draft to SAA would be replaced with "moderators" or "list moderators" as appropriate.  The existing SAA github repository should be renamed to reflect a name change, keeping a forwarding reference for the old SAA github, if possible.  Similarly, a new email alias, perhaps "ietf-list-moderators" would be recreated to replace [e-mail].  [e-mail] would be changed to being an alias for ietf-list-moderators.

Two other RFCs (RFC 4677 and RFC 4633) reference the SAA, but I do not see that they need to be updated if this document keeps a reference to the historic name.


(2) To change unprofessional to uncivil:

OLD:

   Inappropriate postings include:

   *  Advertising and other unsolicited bulk e-mail

   *  Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
      activities, or technical topics

   *  Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject

   *  Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
      sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or the IETF.

NEW:

   Inappropriate postings include:

   *  Advertising and other unsolicited bulk e-mail

   *  Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
      activities, or technical topics

   *  Uncivil commentary, regardless of the general subject

   *  Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
      sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or the IETF.

// Personally, I didn't really have a problem with unprofessional, but clearly some members of the community feel strongly that that the use of this word sends the wrong message or picks up additional unintended emphasis.  Uncivil seems like a reasonable alternative, and bike shedding on the choice of word here is probably not helpful.



(3) To make the text more explicit that BCP45bis defines the charter that is
used for list moderation.

OLD

   The SAAs are intended to establish a self-moderation function on the
   community, by the community.  The IETF Chair therefore should not
   appoint an SAA who is serving in a NomCom-appointed IETF leadership
   position.  If an SAA is selected for such a position, they will step
   down as SAA.

NEW

  Moderation of the list, including the handling of any appeals, is to be
  guided by the IETF discussion list charter specified in section 2, and the
  related guidance from section 1 that applies to all mailing lists.  The IETF
  list moderators are intended to establish a self-moderation function on
  the community, by the community.  The IETF Chair therefore should not
  appoint a list moderator who is serving in a NomCom-appointed IETF
  leadership position.  If a list moderator is selected for such a position,
  they will step down as a moderator.

Does anyone have any strong opinions on any of these proposed changes?  In particular, is anyone opposed to these changes.

Regards,
Rob

// Shepherding AD