Re: [mpowr] Mailing List Management

[Alex Conta <[e-mail]>]

jak,

I am very sympathetic with your experience.

But, I fundamentally disagree with this proposal. Please see further 
comments - sorry if they are repetition of what was already said before 
on this topic:

James Kempf wrote:

> Margaret's draft proposes letting WG chairs manage mailing list membership,
> rather than requiring the IESG to do it as is currently the case. From my
> experience as a WG chair, I can say that there is nothing as effective in
> derailing a WG as a disruptive mailing list participant, and once such a
> disruption occurs, it is often difficult to get any good technical work out
> of the WG because the really good technical people simply leave. 

I am sorry, I cannot agree with such a brute force solution.

As IETF has gained over the years such a large international Email 
attendance, with a unequaled diversity of backgrounds, traditions, 
educations, opinions, interests, ideas, etc... it should put no barriers 
to the free expression of ideas, or opinions pertaining to the topics of 
a WG work.

IETF is an OPEN standard, and that is a BIG difference with the other 
competing SDOs, which have more or even more stringent rules about their 
mailing lists.

Freedom of speech, and free access is one of the characteristics that 
makes IETF OPEN.

Taking away the freedom of speech should have the very high threshold, 
if not higher than that of today's.

> I've also
> been told by other WG chairs who have tried that the IESG is extremely
> reluctant to remove someone from a mailing list, even if the evidence of
> disruption is quite apparent. 

Hm, that's a browny point for IESG.

On the other hand, I think IESG should have helped you resolve the 
crisis in the WG by other means. Have you asked for other type of help 
from IESG, other than stopping Email access?  This sounds like a typical 
technical conflict resolution problem, for which there is a science and 
professionals, who would be glad to help.

> I suspect that is why this proposal was a
> crowd pleaser when brought up at the plenary in Minneapolis.
> 
> However, there have been some concerns expressed. Scott Bradner mentioned
> the potential of a liability problem, and Alex Contra mentioned the problem
> of chair abuse. 

It is Alex Conta.

There were other earlier voices on the "solutions" list. Please check.

> The latter would presumably be when a chair designates as
> "disruptive" someone who is honestly but persistently expressing an opinion
> on technical matters that is contrary to what the chair believes should be
> part of the WG's documents. Clearly, there's a boundary here between
> disruption and honest disagreement, but the boundary is not always clear.
> 

That's is exactly the reason why, if we do anything now, that should be 
to raise the threshold even higher.

> Suppose that in order to join an IETF WG mailing list, a person would have
> to agree to a mailing list "Code of Conduct" by clicking through a page that
> describes it. The "Code of Conduct" could be checked by lawyers to make sure
> it can be defensible legally, as would the signup procedure. And it would
> mean that the mailing list would need to be hosted somewhere that could
> support a more elaborate signup procedure than today. 

I wonder what would you put in the code of conduct regarding a technical 
controversy, or regarding technical content disagreement?

> Then, when a WG chair
> believes that a participant is being disruptive, (s)he would send three
> email messages privately to the particpant, cc'ing the AD, with specific
> evidence, in the form of emails, posting statistics (for people who are
> spamming the list), etc., requesting the participant to cease. If the three
> email messages don't work, the WG chair would then discuss the matter with
> the AD and, with the AD's approval (sent as an email message to the WG
> chair), the chair would send email to the participant that his/her posting
> privileges were being revoked for a three month period. The participant
> could appeal to the IESG if (s)he felt that (s)he was being treated
> unfairly.
> 
> Comments?
> 

In my opinion, the reluctance of IESG to grant requests of shutting off 
people from the mailing list, who are within the boundaries of technical 
content, is wise.

Alex

>             jak
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpowr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr
> 
>