[Mod-discuss] Re: Keith Moore's response to WGLC (was Re: WG Last call for draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10)

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete,

On 08.10.2025 00:47, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
>     If there's a need for the moderation team to be given "emergency
>     power" to act on short notice (which is at least plausible), the
>     document could require that any sanctions imposed by the mod team
>     and bypassing the WG chairs be limited in time (say 10 days max,
>     or until the normal facilitators act) and subject to automatic
>     review by the WG chairs or other usual facilitators of this part
>     of the process.
>
> I would not object at all to such an addition to the document, and if 
> this can be taken as a WGLC comment, I'd suggest adding this to 4, 
> inserted just before, "Section 4.1 discusses the handling of 
> disagreements":
>
> "When actions are taken by members of the moderation team due to the 
> unavailability of an administrator, the administrator will review the 
> situation upon their return in consultation with the moderator(s) who 
> took the action. The administrator may change the action based on that 
> review."
>
I will create a PR tomorrow, but I don't believe it should be merged.

We have a perfectly valid way to resolve disagreements if administrators 
later disagree with the action: resolve it with the AD.  And if a 
moderator pulled the trigger quickly the AD not only can recognize it in 
that instance, but can take it into account when that moderator is 
evaluated.  Your alternative risks actually reducing AD visibility to 
such disagreement if the moderator doesn't raise the matter.

This having been said, as a practical matter, I don't think our tooling 
is actually up to making distinctions about these two roles.  I wouldn't 
be fussed if they continued not to.  This is a corner case of a corner 
case (another reason to not complicate the text).

Eliot