IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Mod-discuss] Re: RFC7282 relevant? [Re: Keith Moore's response to WGLC (was Re: WG Last call for draft...)]

Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com> Tue, 16 September 2025 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@nixmagic.com>
X-Original-To: mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DBE63481CE for <mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 2025 19:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VqvYMXy1GJ5T for <mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 2025 19:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nixmagic.com (e1.nixmagic.com [116.203.235.171]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A583063481C7 for <mod-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 2025 19:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from workstation.vm.ideapad.internal (dhcp13.lan [192.168.10.213]) by nixmagic.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEBE3114802; Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:38:59 +0000 (UTC)
From: Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, mod-discuss@ietf.org, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 04:38:59 +0200
Message-ID: <878997955.0ifERbkFSE@workstation.vm.ideapad.internal>
Organization: workstation.vm.ideapad.internal
In-Reply-To: <7f8b0b09-f76d-4232-a71b-e984f015f1f1@gmail.com>
References: <13A938B3-41DA-4BC2-A19F-539DD79E0D64@fugue.com> <c3ec1ae7-5738-4aa8-8a76-6a685d952d58@gmail.com> <7f8b0b09-f76d-4232-a71b-e984f015f1f1@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Message-ID-Hash: ZD7MDPHFE56TG3MLFI2FMSAQHGPUA2MS
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZD7MDPHFE56TG3MLFI2FMSAQHGPUA2MS
X-MailFrom: ietf@nixmagic.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-0; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-1; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-2; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-3; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-4; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-5; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-6; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-7; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-8; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-9; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Mod-discuss] Re: RFC7282 relevant? [Re: Keith Moore's response to WGLC (was Re: WG Last call for draft...)]
List-Id: Discussion list for IETF moderation policies and practices <mod-discuss.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mod-discuss/Oge29eHkTNEUHkR4ATtnk9cI16I>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mod-discuss>
List-Help: <mailto:mod-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mod-discuss-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mod-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mod-discuss-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mod-discuss-leave@ietf.org>

On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 00:21:58 Central European Summer Time Rob Sayre 
wrote:
> > "It" being RFC7282, and the text concerned being "nor should someone be 
> > considered disruptive solely because they are outside the rough 
> > consensus", I agree that a citation would be relevant.

Isn't that already in the draft though? Or are you referring to 7282 being 
referenced alongside that text?
 
> But I also looked up the "table-flipping" video game.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Chabudai_Gaeshi
> 
> There is a point when someone feels entitled to be heard that is too much.

I think this is something that deserves emphasis. In the draft, this is 
mentioned as "The IETF community will treat people with kindness and grace, 
but not endless patience." Which I don't think is a bad mantra to have. We are 
not endlessly entitled to each other's time and consideration.

Perhaps that could also be an exclusion to the notion of technical argument 
being off-limits for moderation. It is likely that such repeated argument is 
technical in nature, at least to some extent. I don't think it's controversial 
to say that many of us feel very strongly about our technical contributions, 
and that those often clash. But that doesn't mean that everyone feels equally 
strongly about each other's ideas. If an idea that is technical in nature, but 
so outlandish as to be unworkable, keeps being pushed over and over again, I 
think that's a valid grounds for moderation actions like locking the thread, 
putting those participants on list moderation, etc. Not an outright ban, but 
at least demanding to take a step back for a while. A clear statement that 
enough is enough.

-- 
[Met vriendelijke groet] [Best regards]
[Michael De Roover]
---      ---      ---      ---      
[Mail] [*@nixmagic.com] [michael@at@de.roover.eu.org]
[Web] [https://michael.de.roover.eu.org]
[Forge] [https://git.nixmagic.com]
[Weather] [Antwerpen] [04:00] [13.9°C]
---      ---      ---      ---      
[0] [2025-09-16 04:28 CEST]
[~] [vim@workstation.vm.ideapad.internal]
[$] [/usr/bin/sign-mail] [>_] 
---      ---      ---      ---

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status