[Mod-discuss] Last call review of draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Hi moderation enthusiasts,

I just did a full read through of draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10. I
think the document is incredibly thorough, well-written, and is ready to be
advanced towards publication.

I have a few suggestions that I don't consider to be blocking:

* Section 2.1 (Composition) states <<The moderator team consists of no less
than five individuals>> but doesn't explain what happens if that number
were ever to drop to four due to unfortunately timed resignations. I'd
recommend using text similar to Section 3.1 of RFC 7776 to avoid ambiguity.

* In section 5.1 (Relation to the Ombudsteam), I think we do a good job of
covering communications from the administrators to the Ombudsteam, but I
would suggest adding text about the converse direction. Perhaps something
like this: <<If the Ombudsteam is confidentially notified of unacceptable
behavior on a public forum, they may notify the appropriate administrator
about the concern and suggest a course of action. Administrators are
encouraged to take Ombudsteam concerns into consideration. The Ombudsteam
will clearly communicate whether their proposal is a non-binding suggestion
or a formal Remedy as defined in Section 5 of RFC 7776.>>

* Section 5.3 (Relation to the IRTF) was unclear to me. The IRTF has its
own code of conduct but it still requires mailing list communication to be
respectful and professional. Is the intent of this section to say that IRTF
lists are out of scope for the moderation team? I think that would be a
mistake. The IRSG is primarily responsible for enforcing the IRTF code of
conduct, but I think the moderation team should be able to intervene in the
same way that they can for IETF WGs.

I fully support advancing the document, even if we don't end up reaching
consensus on my suggestions above.

Thanks,
David (writing as an individual)