MIME-Version: 1.0
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 18:48:37 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAPDSy+595bZjjFHVnvhFcYNUbk2h=jU8Uu-kpB7DeGe7dbaurw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Moderation Discussion <mod-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e927c7063e90da6c"
Message-ID-Hash: 3WM75YSOMYOAV5UVLFLE7P6XNK7TIS3N
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BMod-discuss=5D_Last_call_review_of_draft-ietf-modpod-group-proc?=
	=?utf-8?q?esses-10?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mod-discuss/5_Ey6CpZkWK91uV_Zg832BLI5Zc>

--000000000000e927c7063e90da6c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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)

--000000000000e927c7063e90da6c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi moderation enthusiasts,<div><br></div><div>I just did a=
 full read through of=C2=A0draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10. I think th=
e document is incredibly thorough, well-written, and is ready to be advance=
d towards publication.</div><div><br></div><div>I have a few suggestions th=
at I don&#39;t consider to be blocking:</div><div><br></div><div>* Section =
2.1 (Composition) states &lt;&lt;The moderator team consists of no less tha=
n five individuals&gt;&gt; but doesn&#39;t explain what happens if that num=
ber were ever to drop to four due to unfortunately timed resignations. I=
9;d recommend using text similar to Section 3.1 of RFC 7776 to avoid ambigu=
ity.</div><div><br></div><div>* In section 5.1 (Relation to the Ombudsteam)=
, I think we do a good job of covering communications from the administrato=
rs to the Ombudsteam, but I would suggest adding text about the converse di=
rection. Perhaps something like this: &lt;&lt;If the Ombudsteam is confiden=
tially notified of unacceptable behavior on a public forum, they may notify=
 the appropriate administrator about the concern and suggest a course of ac=
tion. Administrators are encouraged to take Ombudsteam concerns into consid=
eration. 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.&gt;&gt;</div><div><br></div><div>* Section 5.3 (Relation to the IRTF)=
 was unclear to me. The IRTF has its own code of conduct but it still requi=
res mailing list communication to be respectful and professional. Is the in=
tent of this section to say that IRTF lists are out of scope for the modera=
tion team? I think that would be a mistake. The IRSG is primarily responsib=
le 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.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>I fully support advancing the document, even if we do=
n&#39;t end up reaching consensus on my suggestions above.</div><div><br></=
div><div>Thanks,</div><div>David (writing as an individual)</div></div>

--000000000000e927c7063e90da6c--