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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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]