[Mod-discuss] Re: disliking (bits of) the draft is not about incompetence or corruption

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

I agree with you about censorship but partially because I see the
largest risks as being about people and not about ideas or even how
those ideas are expressed.  Maybe that makes my views different from
those of Stephen, Simon, or Keith; maybe not.  

But I see a distinction between the present situation and the
proposed one that may be important.  I see the IESG as not wanting to
deal with moderation or disruption sorts of problems.  I think that
is rational: they are busy and I think it is a safe guess that no one
signed up to be an AD because managing disruptions (actual or
alleged) was the main reason why they volunteered.  The community's
reaction to the most recent times they have tried to use BCP 83
almost certainly reinforced disinclination to get involved with the
issues.  There has also been some evidence of ADs responding to
complaints about WG chairs favoring some positions or arguments over
others by siding with the chairs because they are not following the
relevant WG closely or making the question of whether action should
be taken about trust rather than content.  And I think we've see the
IAB respond to appeals involving IETF process by essentially saying
that it is the IESG's area of responsibility and they see no reason
to second-guess them.

All of that is, from some perspectives (including mine) fairly
reasonable or at least predictable.  As others, I think including
you, have suggested, that turns the question before this WG into
whether the proposed mechanisms will make things better or worse.  If
the defense against certain types of fears is that the document
forbids the relevant behavior, I think there is a case for "worse"
because it makes it far easier for ADs (or the whole IESG) to say
"there is a moderation team, they are the experts, and we see no
reason to try to second-guess them".   Using censorship as an
example, if, contrary to the document, moderators start sanctioning
people to suppress their ideas, would the IESG reverse that on
appeal?  I certainly hope so.  I would even get optimistic enough to
say "probably".  But there is very real chance of the IESG not
wanting to deal with the question, especially during particularly
busy times.

As another example, suppose someone appears to be behaving, in a
particular WG or on a particular topic, in a fashion consistent with
what we have historically considered troll-like ways.  If someone
then tries to counter that behavior by pointing at them (in a meeting
or online) and saying "you are a troll", doing so often enough would
be disruptive.   In terms of disruption worthy of sanctions, who is
the offender?    If one does not have a clear answer to that question
and confidence that it will be applied consistently no matter who the
actors are (even if one is reasonably well-connected in the IETF and
the other is not), maybe that contributes to an understanding of what
some of us are concerned about.

Finally, I agree with Keith on at least part of this.  He and I may
be looking in different places rather than under the lampposts (or
under different lampposts), but I believe we have already seen
instances of the problems, rather than being able to believe that
problems have never occurred and therefore probably won't.  As far as
solidarity is concerned, I agree with you up to a point, but then
suggest that the easiest was to get solidarity in a group is to be
sure that group is homogeneous wrt views.  In turn, one way to get
that level of homogeneity in a group is to push out everyone with
views that differ from those of the group leadership out by putting
labels on them and then banning or discouraging anyone associated
with those labels.

   john


--On Tuesday, October 7, 2025 15:27 +0200 Ted Lemon
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle of A Fire Upon The Deep or
> something. Sheesh, folks.
> 
> This is not about censorship. Censorship is explicitly forbidden by
> the draft as it is currently written.
> 
> If we really think that things can go bad in the ways that folks
> have described, this is already possible, because we always have to
> trust nomcom and the IESG and the chairs to call consensus fairly.
> We have to trust the IAB appeals path. If the people in these
> positions don't call consensus fairly, and the IAB doesn't call
> them on it, they can pretty much do whatever they want.
> 
> The reason this hasn't already happened is that we don't want it
> to. That is the thing we need to maintain. No amount of
> wordsmithing will substitute for solidarity.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mod-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]