[Mod-discuss] Re: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-11

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 07-Oct-25 08:27, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
>> On 6 Oct 2025, at 23:47, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>> Thanks once more for your review.  Please see below.
>> On 06.10.2025 12:35, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> Issues:
>>>
>>> I want to preface this with: I have not followed discussion in this group and so will happily defer to established positions if these issues have already been discussed. These are preferences on my part only. Also, I would prefer not to delay the process further.
>>>
>>> While I acknowledge that a permanent ban is sometimes necessary, I do think that the procedures around those could be a little more accountable at the level of this document. I understand that the moderation team has the task of defining procedures themselves, but actions like silencing participation permanently would benefit from a secondary check. In particular, this is because reinstatement has no meaningful recourse. My suggestion is that permanent censure of any sort require IESG approval.
>>>
>> I would have no problem with this, so long as it does not require a community consultation. That is where BCP83 really broke down.
> 
> The problem with this is that it makes the IESG both the substantive decision maker and the appeal body.  While there are times when this is the appropriate, there needs to be more consideration of the alternatives before settling on that.

I don't worry about this, because the appeal can then be elevated to the IAB, per RFC 2026.

     Brian

> Someone previously suggested a greater level of moderator team consensus, the more serious the punishment, and while that general approach may be too much, the narrow case where a permanent ban requires full moderator team consensus is a viable alternative to pushing this up to the IESG, especially as the IESG will almost certainly determine that by consensus.
> 
> Jay
>