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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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