DKIM2-Signature: i=1; m=1; t=1792778898; d=fugue.com;
	mf=PG1lbGxvbkBmdWd1ZS5jb20+;
	rt=PG1vZC1kaXNjdXNzQGlldGYub3JnPg==;
	s=fm3:rsa-sha256:I75f7zCJem9efWJhJ6l36FFatOsulTYi0CZp0IOek+NUdBg
	OpP9Ck+1QDLfZ5Cp1lwhrOQY0FvfmwZ8GQhidYZT0+qPg294qnpOWwt7O6He/gg7
	aNrbzDjCEbHvKnVc2nwy5gembRtsKKpqorGJduaYw5IvwJr+9og44x6H+ROWHAfy
	flge/g7vzz/z6kEzjHSqqDlc8mNNjk5sck06iISEDVHTJL/R3lSeF2I9yEqcgmld
	QsxeSZrOYB9tcn+028skxaBCmoWFZoRiP5T1jzCP/0gwHLoqiCiWHWjmyJi5FkF5
	dBxEPv2YA33zvdhLV1hJTHiKvSyCZb1uR2vK4Dw==;
Message-Instance: m=1;
 h=sha256:0h60jhf/Jt9x6ES7xGFAeIR7Sm2UNxnT5Ss3LopNPko=:XvCF6uQkJea7FHEY30JGadAjN6iDae/uxNFAwSVooMc=;
Feedback-ID: i1136489e:Fastmail
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <4E387117-0F8A-489E-8475-97C7D18EF7E2@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_74B4E90C-F5CB-4254-A38F-E4BBCEF16469"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3901.300.26\))
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2026 20:08:05 +0200
In-Reply-To: <7107b62f-f396-4cfe-88df-d95e010e083e@app.fastmail.com>
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
References: <364e7c73-6146-4f86-9bf6-db5443c42e4a@app.fastmail.com>
 <7107b62f-f396-4cfe-88df-d95e010e083e@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID-Hash: G62JE5LPG6EDA7S2DTTBAQVVZ5JTWS6F
CC: Moderation Discussion <mod-discuss@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: [Mod-discuss] Re: Moderator Team Procedures - For Community Input
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mod-discuss/pLKRCk2rUY44-R3SpZVx1J4KhIs>


--Apple-Mail=_74B4E90C-F5CB-4254-A38F-E4BBCEF16469
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

On 23 Oct 2026, at 19:32, Bron Gondwana =
<brong=3D40fastmailteam.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> I think so.  I don't believe that softening language and calling =
people "naughty little scamp" rather than "selfish disruptive jerk" =
improves the setting of clear expectations.  We can bikeshed/wordsmith =
the word, but this is the IETF's policy enforcement mechanism.  Force.  =
We are using a power not granted to everybody, to stop somebody doing =
something, because the IETF has determined that such behaviour is =
detrimental to the purposes and mission of the organisation.

Bron, that wasn't my point at all. My point is that the framing you've =
presented here here is incorrect and harmful. It is _not_ the case that =
everybody who behaves badly on IETF mailing lists has bad intentions. =
Some do, sure, but mostly we are just badly socialized. Maybe they can =
get better, maybe they can't, but the point is that that's the primary =
problem the mod team is supposed to be addressing. That's why we don't =
want BCP 83.

Furthermore, you _know_ that lots of people who behave badly on IETF =
mailing lists don't have bad intentions, and that's going to mean that =
you won't take action to "punish" them, because you rightly believe they =
don't deserve to be punished.

This is exactly the opposite of what the working group intended (based =
of course on my internal non-binding consensus call). We wanted quick, =
lightweight, non-judgmental action. This will also of course work for =
determined repeat offenders, but if we only apply the available remedies =
to actually ill-intentioned people, we'll fail.


--Apple-Mail=_74B4E90C-F5CB-4254-A38F-E4BBCEF16469
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=us-ascii

<html aria-label=3D"message body"><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" =
content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"></head><body =
style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
line-break: after-white-space;">On 23 Oct 2026, at 19:32, Bron Gondwana =
&lt;brong=3D40fastmailteam.com@dmarc.ietf.org&gt; wrote:<div><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div><meta charset=3D"UTF-8"><div style=3D"font-size: =
14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; =
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; font-family: =
Arial;">I think so.&nbsp; I don't believe that softening language and =
calling people "naughty little scamp" rather than "selfish disruptive =
jerk" improves the setting of clear expectations.&nbsp; We can =
bikeshed/wordsmith the word, but this is the IETF's policy enforcement =
mechanism.&nbsp; Force.&nbsp; We are using a power not granted to =
everybody, to stop somebody doing something, because the IETF has =
determined that such behaviour is detrimental to the purposes and =
mission of the =
organisation.</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Bron, that wasn't =
my point at all. My point is that the framing you've presented here here =
is incorrect and harmful. It is _not_ the case that everybody who =
behaves badly on IETF mailing lists has bad intentions. Some do, sure, =
but mostly we are just badly socialized. Maybe they can get better, =
maybe they can't, but the point is that that's the primary problem the =
mod team is supposed to be addressing. That's why we don't want BCP =
83.</div><div><br></div><div>Furthermore, you _know_ that lots of people =
who behave badly on IETF mailing lists don't have bad intentions, and =
that's going to mean that you won't take action to "punish" them, =
because you rightly believe they don't deserve to be =
punished.</div><div><br></div><div>This is exactly the opposite of what =
the working group intended (based of course on my internal non-binding =
consensus call). We wanted quick, lightweight, non-judgmental action. =
This will also of course work for determined repeat offenders, but if we =
only apply the available remedies to actually ill-intentioned people, =
we'll fail.</div><div><br></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_74B4E90C-F5CB-4254-A38F-E4BBCEF16469--