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

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Fair enough. If folks don't want to expand the scope to the IRTF, then that
works for me. I've written up this clarification and my other points as
GitHub PRs:

https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/222
https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/223
https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/224

Cheers,
David

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 2:03 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I agree with Colin. This is an IETF WG so let's limit its scope to the
> IETF.
>
> Regards/Ngā mihi
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 13-Sep-25 07:07, Colin Perkins wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > I would argue that the right approach to moderating mailing lists
> relating to a standards development organisation differs from that of a
> research organisation.
> >
> > The IETF has process requirements for openness that the IRTF dos not
> have. The IETF has requirements for consensus that the IRTF does not have.
> As a result, moderators might put the bar for what is considered disruptive
> in a different place in the IETF than in the IRTF – the goals of the two
> organisations differ, so might the goals of their moderation policies.
> >
> > RFC 3683 (PR-Action) and RFC 3934, which are the main drivers for
> MODPOD, have never applied to IRTF.
> >
> > This WG should define a moderation process for the IETF lists, following
> its charter. The IRTF can define its own processes.
> >
> > Colin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12 Sep 2025, at 19:23, David Schinazi wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Colin,
> >
> >     You're absolutely right, IETF consensus isn't enough to change IRTF
> policies. But we can solve that by getting this document approved by the
> IRSG in addition to IETF consensus. The "Problems with the Previous
> Approach" appendix does a great job of explaining why it's helpful to have
> moderators in addition to WG chairs, and that logic applies just as well to
> RG chairs. Additionally, this would be in line with how the IRTF follows
> the IETF anti-harassment policy.
> >
> >     David
> >
> >     On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 12:32 AM Colin Perkins <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >         HI,
> >
> >         [one comment inline]
> >
> >         On 12 Sep 2025, at 2:48, David Schinazi wrote:
> >
> >             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.
> >
> >         That’s a possible option, but the IRSG would have to decide to
> opt into the policy. As an IETF working group, MODPOD can’t make that
> decision for the IRTF.
> >
> >         (The IETF and IRTF have historically had different mailing list
> moderation policies)
> >
> >         Colin
> >
> >             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)
> >
> >
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >             Mod-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:
> [e-mail]>
> >             To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mod-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> _______________________________________________
> Mod-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>