Re: [mpowr] Mailing List Management

[Alex Conta <[e-mail]>]

James Kempf wrote:

>[...] 
> 
> The problem is that when a disruptor appears, the good technical people tend
> to leave. [...]

I have never seen this happen, and it is hard to imagine such dynamics: 
  people's interest is the work in a WG, how can it be the mailing list? 
Can you point to an Email archive that would show this?

> Unfortunately, this does require a
> judgement call on the part of the chair and the AD, and its possible that
> they might judge wrong. 

If I think of analogies to daily life, it is nightmarish.

> That's why it is necessary to have an appeals
> process for people who feel they've been treated unfairly. 

The appeal will be innefective, because the incentive is to uphold the 
decisions.

> From the
> experience I've had and talking with other WG chairs who have had similar
> experiences, I feel that the risk of losing a WG to mailing list disruption
> is much higher than having an autocratic chair that shuts someone out just
> because they have a different technical opinion. Actually, I've never seen
> an instance of the latter, and I know of at least two cases of the former.

I am confused. How could you see the latter, since the rule is not yet 
in effect.

> So I believe that allowing the WG chair and AD to remove mailing list
> participants with the particpant allowed to appeal to the IESG if they feel
> treated unfairly is the right way to go. I believe that both WG chairs
> should agree if there are co-chairs for the WG, and the AD should be
> consulted.

If this consultation is to take place, why not to leave the decision to 
the ADs, as it is today?

> However, I'm still undecided about whether the WG chairs should be allowed
> to remove someone if the AD doesn't respond quickly enough, as John Klensin
> has proposed. On the one hand, I see the need for speed, having experienced
> the problems a lag can cause when an AD is busy elsewhere. 

What lag? Can you be more explicit? I asked this before, and no one 
explained why it is necessary to have a quick action?

> On the other, I
> believe the risk is much higher that a WG chair may make a wrong judgement
> call if AD approval is not required.
> 

I would feel more comfortable if the WG chair would make a proposal and 
the decision would be taken by the ADs.

We could attach a time limit for the ADs action, to resolve the issue of 
  IESG not acting, although I think the no action, is caused by the 
uncomfort to take such decisions.

Alex C.

>             jak
>