[Mod-discuss] Re: WG Last call for draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Stephen,

I've split your email into 15 subissues from 159.

Eliot

On 27.08.2025 09:43, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Please see below:
>
> On 27.08.2025 04:01, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>>
>> ## Specific non-nits:
>>
>> - s1.1: "It is up to the moderators..." that seems in the wrong
>> place as we've not defined moderators yet and we probably want to
>> say administrators. (This isn't a flowery language point:-)
>
> Let's not get tangled around forward references, but yes the word 
> should be administrators.
>
>
>>
>> - s1.1: "decide which mix of preemptive and reactive moderation to
>> employ" on it's face would allow a company-X administrator/moderator
>> to pre-emptively moderate all emails from any new posters from
>> company-Y. I think it's also an important part of the background that
>> we don't want that, so suggest adding a sentence about fairness/open-
>> ness etc. with some suitable reference. (I don't mind much which text
>> or reference and I'm sure the editors could find something fine.)
>
> Since all actions are appealable, this surely would be caught. The 
> higher level point here is that *anyone* including administrators can 
> misbehave.  We just had an appeal here that tests whether that was the 
> case.
>
>
>>
>> - 1.2: "The cornerstone of our philosophy is first and foremost the
>> individual," No, it isn't. And that's not even a good sentence. (Am
>> I, as an individual, a cornerstone? Are we all? That's a lot of
>> corners, and do philosophies even have corners?:-) I'd say delete the
>> entire paragraph as it reads like a typically overblown HR statement.
>> (Apologies to whoever suggested it - sometimes one just misses the
>> target;-)
>
> This is a dup of an issue Jay raised.
>
>
>>
>> - 1.2: "However, when someone crosses the line into disruptive
>> behavior, some action must be taken in order to maintain decorum of
>> the community." Hmm. I don't think the IETF requires decorum, nor
>> have we consensus on such a proposition. My interpretation of
>> "decorum" is that it means a thing much stronger than behaving
>> well.
>
> How about comity? ;-)
>
>>
>> - 1.2: "broadest possible latitude to all people" - I don't like
>> that - we do not want moderators to be allowed to delete someone's
>> datatracker account from the DB just for disruption for example;
>> suggest deleting "the broadest possible"
>
> I disagree.
>
>
>>
>> - 1.3: Do we recognise that e.g. WG chairs might not in fact be
>> able to moderate github discussions (if the repo is owned by an
>> author)? I don't think this is the document to propose that all
>> WG draft github repos need to belong to a github org that's under
>> the control of IETF administrators. Suggest s/are administrators/
>> are to be considered administrators/
>
> We cover this: only IETF fora are within scope.  If someone's personal 
> repo becomes a sewer, we can't control that, and I agree that this is 
> not the document to insist that repos fall within an ietf organization.
>
>>
>> - 2.1: the IESG appoints, which is fine, but are those fixed-term
>> appointments or not? I figure we need to say.
>
> Can we leave that to the IESG?
>
>>
>> - s3: "They are also encouraged to report inappropriate behavior
>> directed..." that seems like scope-creep - this is only about
>> disruptive behaviour - there's >1 instance of this and it's IMO
>> a major point.
>
> Are you suggesting s/inappropriate/disruptive/?
>
>
>>
>> - s3: I had interpreted administrator as "either WG chair or part
>> of the moderation team" but now it seems moderation team members
>> are not considered administrators. That's fine, but noteworthy
>> as I'd assumed the opposite 'till this read-through.
>
> Not on first instance for fora for which other administrators are defined.
>
>>
>> - s3: "Moderators may take actions when administrators do not
>> respond to reports in a timely fashion." - I'll reiterate my
>> dislike of this, but also that I can live with the meat of the
>> current proposal. (Assuming the text ends up good, which is not
>> yet the case.)
>>
>> - s3: "moderators are not expected to always actively monitor all
>> communications" is way too weak and the wrong way about, I think
>> we want to say that moderators should not act unless they have a
>> good basis on which to act either based on really knowing the
>> forum, or the egregious nature of a posting
>
> I believe this text was fully litigated, and shouldn't be relitigated.
>
>
>>
>> - s3: "cuts across" seems too ambiguous, we do need to try define
>> this better, so people know what's what
>
> How is it ambiguous?
>
>
>>
>> - s3: "In order to scale the function, except for plenary fora as
>> described above, moderators are not expected to always actively monitor
>> all communications.  Instead, they will process reports from
>> participants." I don't think "actively monitor" is the opposite
>> from "reports from participants" so I'm not happy this is right
>> yet.
>
> s/Instead/In general/
>
> ?
>
>>
>> - s3.1: As a WG chair, I've been told a few times (by trusted people)
>> that person-A had sent bad email to person-B, where bad is not quite
>> defined, and I, as WG chair, don't see the content. How do I know if
>> that's in or out of scope since I'm an administrator?
>
> Private email is not within scope.
>
>
>>
>> - s3.1: this says "problematic" when the document ought only deal
>> with "disruptive"
> ok
>>
>> ## Nits:
>>
>> - abstract: "grace" - I'll take it when I see it, but I doubt
>> that "will treat people... with... grace" will often approximate
>> truth - I'd suggest removing that. (And IMO no organisation can
>> treat anyone with grace, only people can do that.)
>
> We are people.
>
>
>>
>> - abstract: "guardrails" - better to avoid AI fashion phrases
>> entirely IMO, and guardrails != guidelines which is implied by
>> the current text
>
> Not agreeing on that one.
>
>
>>
>> - s1: " This memo describes the moderation of disruptive..."
>> isn't quite right, the text sets out the team setup and does
>> not describe the actual moderation
>
> s/describes the/specifies a policy for/
>
> ?
>
>> - s1.2: "nor should someone be considered disruptive solely
>> because they are outside the rough consensus." I'd suggest
>> s/should/ought/ here just to avoid the potential BCP14 way of
>> misinterpreting that to imply there are cases where someone
>> ought be moderated only because they're not part of the rough
>> consensus.
>>
>> - 1.2: " Apply consistent, fair, and timely moderation of communication
>> across all public IETF participation channels and participation
>> fora; without regard to one's position or previous contributions;"
>> If I squint from a specific angle, I could interpret "one's" above
>> to relate to the moderator and not the poster. Both statements seem
>> ok, but I think we wanted the latter.
>
> I think we missed an edit, so...
>
> s/one's position/one's views, position within the organization,/
>
> I realize this doesn't address your point directly.
>
>
>>
>> - s2: "This memo proposes a uniform approach to moderating the
>> IETF's various public fora." No, it doesn't. It suggests setting
>> up a team to do that.
>>
>> - s2: " A moderator team for the IETF will develop uniform
>> guidelines" what are uniform guidelines and what could possibly
>> be non-uniform guidelines? (Wear a t-shirt and shorts:-) I think
>> we want to say guidelines that don't vary by forum-type (WG or
>> not etc.) or medium (mail vs. issue-trackers)
>
> Ok.
>
>
>>
>> - s2.1: just checking, no strong opinion: "In selecting members,
>> the IESG will take into account geographic coverage, expected and
>> unexpected absences, and team diversity." - so we do not explicitly
>> require the IESG to take into account changes in community views
>> of moderation? (That's ok.)
>
> Well, if the community is screaming because moderators are doing silly 
> things, I would expect the IESG to react.
>
>
>>
>> - 2.2: I think s/moderators/administrators/ here would be better
> ok
>>
>> - s3: "Administrators* are primarily responsible..." managing disruptive
>> postings is not the primary concern of e.g. WG chairs so this
>> seems wrong
>
>
> Eliot
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mod-discuss mailing list [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]