[Mod-discuss] Re: Last call review of draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Colin,

You're absolutely right, IETF consensus isn't enough to change IRTF
policies. But we can solve that by getting this document approved by the
IRSG in addition to IETF consensus. The "Problems with the Previous
Approach" appendix does a great job of explaining why it's helpful to have
moderators in addition to WG chairs, and that logic applies just as well to
RG chairs. Additionally, this would be in line with how the IRTF follows
the IETF anti-harassment policy.

David

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 12:32 AM Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> wrote:

> HI,
>
> [one comment inline]
>
> On 12 Sep 2025, at 2:48, David Schinazi wrote:
>
> Hi moderation enthusiasts,
>
> I just did a full read through of draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10. I
> think the document is incredibly thorough, well-written, and is ready to be
> advanced towards publication.
>
> I have a few suggestions that I don't consider to be blocking:
>
>    - Section 2.1 (Composition) states <<The moderator team consists of no
>    less
>
> than five individuals>> but doesn't explain what happens if that number
> were ever to drop to four due to unfortunately timed resignations. I'd
> recommend using text similar to Section 3.1 of RFC 7776 to avoid ambiguity.
>
>    - In section 5.1 (Relation to the Ombudsteam), I think we do a good
>    job of
>
> covering communications from the administrators to the Ombudsteam, but I
> would suggest adding text about the converse direction. Perhaps something
> like this: <<If the Ombudsteam is confidentially notified of unacceptable
> behavior on a public forum, they may notify the appropriate administrator
> about the concern and suggest a course of action. Administrators are
> encouraged to take Ombudsteam concerns into consideration. The Ombudsteam
> will clearly communicate whether their proposal is a non-binding suggestion
> or a formal Remedy as defined in Section 5 of RFC 7776.>>
>
>    - Section 5.3 (Relation to the IRTF) was unclear to me. The IRTF has
>    its
>
> own code of conduct but it still requires mailing list communication to be
> respectful and professional. Is the intent of this section to say that IRTF
> lists are out of scope for the moderation team? I think that would be a
> mistake. The IRSG is primarily responsible for enforcing the IRTF code of
> conduct, but I think the moderation team should be able to intervene in the
> same way that they can for IETF WGs.
>
> That’s a possible option, but the IRSG would have to decide to opt into
> the policy. As an IETF working group, MODPOD can’t make that decision for
> the IRTF.
>
> (The IETF and IRTF have historically had different mailing list moderation
> policies)
>
> Colin
>
> I fully support advancing the document, even if we don't end up reaching
> consensus on my suggestions above.
>
> Thanks,
> David (writing as an individual)
> ------------------------------
>
> Mod-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>