[Mod-discuss] Re: Issue 210: Reinstatement

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

If you or anyone else has a wording suggestion, I'd be grateful.

Eliot

On 02.09.2025 16:40, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Tuesday, 02 September, 2025 15:43 +0200 Eliot Lear
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I've taken a 2nd whack at this part of the text.  Try
>> this on for size:
>>
>>> People and circumstances change. Individuals whose
>>> participation rights have been suspended from a forum may
>>> request reinstatement. Any such request must be
>>> directed to the entity who made the decision (e.g., moderator
>>> team, working group chairs, etc.) or their successors.  That
>>> party may at their discretion reinstate someone,
>>> conditionally or unconditionally. Reinstatement requests will
>>> only be entertained every four months.  The moderation team
>>> may amend this timeframe as part of the procesess they
>>> develop.
>> If it happens that there are process attacks, the moderation
>> team is in a position to lengthen the period of time through
>> their processes.
>>
>> PR#215.[1]
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processe
>> s/pull/215
> Eliot,
>
> Much better, but I'd favor some variation on the suggestions
> about exponential backoff.  If someone is really determined to
> be disruptive, with the symptoms being a variation on Ted's list:
>   
> 	cause trouble, get banned, appeal, get appeal rejected,
> 	appeal some more, get rejected again, wait, get unbanned
> 	(or not, in which case  the appeals come sooner), cause
> 	trouble, repeat.
>
> Noting that this is rare and almost never happens (but "almost
> never" is not "never"), if someone is really determined to be
> disruptive in the style for which RFC 3683 was designed, we
> should make the first request for reinstatement easy (to reverse
> mistakes and let people who have learned back in to contribute
> constructively) but either spread subsequent requests out more
> or otherwise prevent the moderation mechanism and its safeguards
> from becoming more of an avenue to disruption (not just of a
> mailing list or WG, but the IESG, IAB, and community) than
> whatever caused the action in the first place.
>
> Some variation on exponential backoff would be one way.  I can
> think of others, but they would require us to invent even more
> specialized processes.
>
> best,
>     john
>
>
>
>
>
>
>