[Mod-discuss] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-09.txt

[Edward Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 30, 2025, at 22:26, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Even that example presents some challenges, like could a bad actor try to misuse the moderation process to slow an emerging consensus?  Keep in mind that moderators are not expected to monitor most fora, so they won't have the context.  With this in mind, do you want to take another shot at the text?


I think this concern about bad actors slowing the consensus process is overblown. I've never actually seen anyone do that, but I can think of several cases where feedback loops caused so much noise that evaluating consensus became impossible and the chairs gave up, with results that I'm quite sure didn't reflect the consensus. I maybe wrong that they didn't—that's the point—but this is clearly a way that process is harmed at the IETF for which we already have running code that works well. I haven't seen the other attack in the wild, so it's hard to take it very seriously.

We are also putting a lot of faith in the process of the moderators coming up with policies and procedures and best practices, and I think this falls into that.

Anyway, maybe something like:

- In particular, moderators should give WG chairs every opportunity to manage what may be 
- difficult and contentious debates within their groups.  Within the bounds of this principle, 
- it is left to moderators' judgement to determine when they must act.

+ Moderators are expected to defer to WG chairs knowledge of working group discussions and therefore 
+ prioritize intervention by chairs where possible. Within the bounds of this principle, it 
+ is left to moderators' judgement to determine when they must act.

I realize that this probably still isn't quite right, but it's the direction I'd suggest going.