[Mod-discuss] Re: Examples of dissent on mod-discuss

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Right, I don’t think that’s what the current document does, and I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it should.

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025, at 5:27 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025, 8:01 AM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 2025, at 16:43, Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> You've experienced the PR-action process, you know that it sucks. We are trying to make that better in a way that people are willing to do. I get why you're trying to avoid this extra work, but the alternative is more public shaming, and I think the IETF at this point has a consensus that that's not the right way to do things. Otherwise this WG wouldn't have been chartered.
>>> 
>>> I never understood this group to be making substantive changes to any IETF procedure.  In fact I've seen repeated emails here from proponents saying the draft doesn't. That's hard to square with your message above. 
>> 
>> From the charter: "The MODeration PrOceDures (MODPOD) work group will revise existing and define new moderation procedures suitable for all IETF communication channels. "
>> 
>> The goal here is to improve moderation so that we don't have to rely on public shaming pursuant to long-term banning as our only way to encourage people to behave better on mailing lists. This current process is described in BCP 83, which the working group is chartered to update or obsolete. So I don't know where you got the idea that we weren't chartered to update IETF procedures. BCP 83 is an IETF procedure. Please read the charter before continuing.
> 
> I wrote words that didn't convey my intended meaning. What I probably meant to say was something along the lines of "wouldn't change the way consensus calls and working groups substantively work" or would only change moderation procedures.
> 
> I hope this gets at distinction I'm trying inarftully to draw, or maybe another way to make my point is it isn't supposed to revise everything.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Watson
>>