[Mod-discuss] Re: Keith Moore's response to WGLC (was Re: WG Last call for draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10)

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

On 17.09.2025 01:16, John C Klensin wrote:
> I am assuming, as the document seems to me to assume (and as I
> believe for other reasons), that suspensions (including RFC 3683-like
> Posting Rights actions) are the most serious moderation actions the
> IETF can take.  So I am suggesting, for moderation decisions that
> include suspensions (no change to anything else)...
>
>   * For a suspension made by a moderation team member, review
> 	by the team either before the action takes effect or, if
> 	there is an emergency, review by the team within a reasonable
> 	period thereafter.    I hope we don't need to specify either
> 	a definition for "reasonable", how the team does that review,
> 	etc.  I don't expect it to happen often, but that review
> 	could result in a change to the decision.
> 	
>   * For a suspension made by a WG Chair or other Administrator,
> 	I note that the document (Section 3, paragraph 4) already
> 	requires them to "address reports of inappropriate behavior
> 	in a timely fashion, apprising moderators of their
> 	disposition".  Once apprised of a suspension-type action, the
> 	moderation team will conduct a review, also in a timely
> 	fashion, and make recommendations to the Administrator as
> 	appropriate.  For other actions, the moderation team should
> 	do such a review if requested by either the Administrator or
> 	the Offender/ Subject of the action... again, purely to
> 	advise the Administrator.  Of course, if there is a severe
> 	disagreement between the Administrator and the Moderation
> 	Team, the appeals procedure could be exercised.
> 	
>   * In addition, if an appeal occurs, the AD or IESG MAY ask
> 	the moderation team to review the situation and offer advice.
> 	That advice would, again, not be binding on anyone, but, if
> 	the moderation team produced a report that was generally
> 	perceived as fair, it could help minimize IESG workload for
> 	the appeal.

We already have text that requires administrators to inform both the AD 
and the moderation team on the disposition of complaints. I think what 
you're asking for is additional review by the moderation team.  That's 
possible with the existing text but not required.  Because suspension is 
a pretty serious thing, I agree that we could add some text that says 
something like, "the moderation team should review all suspensions and 
bans".

?

Eliot


> In addition to removing the ambiguity that I (and maybe Simon and
> others) see in the current text, this reduces the chances of anyone
> -- individual moderator, WG Chair or other Administrator, or even an
> AD -- operating in a King-like fashion without really being aware of
> it and with only a heavyweight appeals procedure as a remedy.
>
> best,
>      john
>
>