[Mod-discuss] Re: Moderator Team Procedures - For Community Input

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 24-Oct-26 07:29, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Bron Gondwana <brong=[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2026, at 04:18, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> Bron Gondwana <brong=[e-mail]> writes:
>>>
>>>>   • Repeated inclusion of derivative rights notices
>>>>     • As per the IESG statement
>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-derivative-works-rights/>
>>>
>>> I believe censoring e-mails due to legal disclaimers is out of scope of
>>> what the moderators team ought to be doing and having a policy about.
>>
>> The IESG has a policy on it. They have declared that they find it
>> disruptive to have legal claims about message content which are
>> incompatible with the notewell being made in messages to IETF forums.
>> It distracts from the purpose of creating high quality technical
>> documents which is the IETF's mission; hence it's in scope.
> 
> The IESG may have policies on many things.  

The IESG sets IETF policy when there's a gap in the process BCPs.

> That doesn't mean you need
> to censor discussion that doesn't follow the policy.  

This is not, and never has been, about censorship.

> This all seems
> like a continuation of a personal conflict, and I don't think it helps
> the IETF to continue to pursue it.

It doesn't seem like that to me. It's about whether spurious legal
gobbledygook attached to messages is or is not disruptive. That's
ultimately a judgment call, and such judgments are made by list moderators
all the time.

    Brian

> 
>>> Taking a legal position on a particular interpretation of IETF legal
>>> policies carry a risk, both for IETF and the people on the moderator
>>> team.  Especially related to legal interpretations that are under
>>> dispute, and one that have implications for the reputation of the IETF.
>>
>> Do you have legal advice on this which contradicts the legal advice
>> which the IESG sought?
> 
> That depends on what legal question the IESG got and the advice it
> received, can you share it?  I've been part of multiple legal analysis
> of the BCP78 legal implications for non-derivative contributions in the
> past, and none of them were consistent with the IESG statement above.
> 
> /Simon
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mod-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]