Re: [mpowr] Mailing List Management

[Alex Conta <[e-mail]>]

Harald,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> James,
> 
> in my opinion Alex Conta and Scott Bradner are wrong.

I will describe this as a difference in opinion rather than using terms 
of right and wrong.

I think the current rule regarding managing the IETF mailing is
wise, and a needed checks and balances mechanism.

Here is why:

WG chairs are NOT process and people managers ONLY.
WG chairs can be a directly interested party in a technical debate, and 
therefore, they may directly benefit from the power of removing one or 
more people from the WG mailing list.

> 
> There are cases where, for the good of the working group, a person 
> should have his or her posting privilleges revoked - FAST - as on the 
> order of a day or three.
> 

"Being disruptive to the WG" cannot be measured in absolute terms. If 
the WG chair is to decide that, and act on it, it may vary from one to 
another.

> This is NOT a free speech issue - it has to do with the ability of the 
> IETF to conduct its work in an open and orderly fashion - BOTH open AND 
> orderly.
> 

What does "orderly" mean?

IETF should be proud of having multi-voice, aggressive, and perhaps 
sometimes long debates. That's what makes it very different from a 
"sanitized", one-voice environment.

Dictatorial environments are known to be more orderly than democratic 
ones.

> For these cases, a simple procedure with 100% clarity on who makes the 
> decision is needed - not a "three strikes and then wait another month" 
> procedure, as any procedure involving the whole IESG is likely to be.
> 

No problem with clarity of "procedure, and responsibility on decision".

> There are other cases where a person is highly disruptive but you have a 
> hard time figuring out why it's disruptive or improper; there are still 
> other cases where a valid, rational technical argument gradually 
> descends into name-calling and truly improper conduct. 

"Improper conduct" is also sort of relative up to a certain point.

What is the status of the "IETF code of conduct"?

> [...]
> But there are cases where the WG chair needs to have this power, and 
> needs to be able to apply it quickly.
> 

If WG chairs were process and people managers ONLY, I would not have a 
problem.

Replacing a checks and balances mechanism, with a rule of "power to 
apply it quickly" makes it like a "state of emergency".

> The rabble-rousers of the world are free to rabble-rouse wherever they 
> want. But no IETF participant should be obliged to listen.
> 

For instance, nobody forces you to read my message.

If my message is disruptive to you, you could have:

- ignore it, and further
- configure a filter to send my messages on this thread, on this list, 
in this WG, etc.... directly to the TRASH folder.

Alex

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