[Mod-discuss] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10 (Ends 2025-09-08)

["D. J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell writes:
> Thanks for trying to do that, but your text didn't describe
> how a moderator could deal with disruption,

Um, what? These are battle-tested procedures used by other standards
organizations. The procedures systematically recognize consensus when it
exists, while preventing incorrect consensus declarations. Systematic
tracking of objections eliminates the ability of document editors to
ignore objections, while also eliminating the incentive for commentators
to repeat themselves.

Are you saying that you've gone through and are concerned about some
specific part of the procedures being vulnerable to disruption? Or are
you just saying that you searched for "disrupt" and didn't find it?

> which is the thing we're trying to do here.

No, that's _not_ what the MODPOD scope of work says. The MODPOD
background statement briefly mentions disruption, but also indicates
that the word is problematically ambiguous. MODPOD's task is instead to
"revise existing and define new moderation procedures suitable for all
IETF communication channels", aiming to "ensure that consistent and fair
moderation procedures exist", etc. What I described is an example of
such procedures.

---D. J. Bernstein