[Mod-discuss] Re: Is there a problem? [was Keith Moore's response to WGLC (was Re: WG Last call...)]

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 14 Sep 2025, at 4:51, Simon Josefsson wrote:

> Pete Resnick <resnick=[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> On 12 Sep 2025, at 3:11, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>
>>> I feel that this effort is driven out of a desire to "we really 
>>> should have a mechanism to ban this person" to ease the every day 
>>> life of people who feel that some person is annoying.
>>
>> To the contrary, this document gets us out of the current procedure 
>> of "banning" people (as per RFC 3683 and RFC 3934) and instead will 
>> encourage the chairs (and the IETF overall) to use far less 
>> problematic measures.
>
> I don't get that from the document.  The document sets up a moderators 
> team with unclear and yet to be written guideliness...

It tasks them with developing guidelines (with the input of the 
community and the approval of the IESG) to give WG chairs and themselves 
suggestions and limits on appropriate moderation.

> ...and gives them ample authority with unclear personal accountability 
> to ban people IETF-wide.

This is the part I don't understand: Where does the document give them 
such an authority? I don't see it. Or are simply you saying that they 
could develop guidelines, with the input of the community and the 
approval of the IESG, that theoretically could give them that authority? 
That doesn't seem plausible to me. What am I missing?

> How will that lead to far less measures?

It will, I believe, result in less bans.

> If we want the moderators team to actually do anything, it looks like 
> the measures are in place to broaden the powers.

Actually, the way the current document is written, we don't want the 
moderators to do all that much. We want them to develop the guidelines. 
We want them to manage the IETF main list. And we want them to be able 
to step in if-and-only-if a chair or other list administrator is 
unavailable to do something.

>> Why do you think the current document makes things worse rather than 
>> better?
>
> The current processes may have a lot problems, but they have been in 
> place for many years and I haven't see a significant and clearly 
> identified problem with community wide support that needs to be fixed 
> with them.

The discussion of the problems certainly happened during chartering, and 
before that with the public discussion of problems with the use of 3683, 
and it certainly has been discussed repeatedly on the wgchairs list.

> On the other hand, this draft proposes to setup a new team with broad 
> powers and no written rules...

Again, I don't see the "broad powers", and the guidelines are explicitly 
cited as needing to be written.

> ...which sounds like an excellent way to create an atmosphere of 
> uncertainty and arbitrary personal bans.

If what you say were true, it might. But that's what I'm not seeing.

> I don't see how we can think that atmosphere will improve IETF output, 
> but I can see that it will be easier to control the output some people 
> want.

I don't see how the current document creates that atmosphere. Indeed, 
once everything is put into action, I expect exactly the opposite.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best