[mpowr] Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update-00.txt

Margaret,

I think this summarizes what I have gotten out of the 
discussions, with one qualification, noted below.  I'd love to 
see this be a candidate for either an immediate IETF Last Call 
or the procedure outlined in 
draft-klensin-process-july14-00.txt, since I have no reason to 
imagine that more debates about charters, or debates within a 
WG, would tell us anything we don't know already.

(1) Qualification/ Substantive Issue: If you are going to be 
precise here, the last sentence should read something like

	"Other methods of mailing list control, and longer or
	additional suspensions, must be approved by the IESG or
	carried out in accordance with other IESG-approved
	procedures."

This makes two changes, one of which I think is clearly 
consistent with mailing list discussions.  The other is too, 
although less clearly because there has been less discussion:

(i) The intent, as I understand it, is to permit a WG chair to 
rather quickly suspend posting privileges in an abusive 
situation and for a short period of time.  Even the possibility 
of attaching a second 30 day suspension to the end of the first 
one smells like abuse, and was not what seems to be intended. 
So the WG Chair gets one 30 day suspension as specified, but 
longer or additional ones need some additional consultation, up 
through and including application of 
draft-mrose-ietf-posting-04.txt.

(ii) Driven partially by the frustration and thinking that went 
into the above-cited "process-july15" draft, I note that the 
mailing list discussions identified a rather large space between 
"maybe shutting someone out for 30 days is ok" and "shutting 
someone off forever".  I think we need to view that 30 days 
largely as a "cooling off" period and an opportunity for further 
consultation about what might happen next, if needed, and under 
what circumstances.   At the same time, I believe that the IESG 
ought to be able to tailor the "what next" to the circumstances 
-- which might include giving guidance to the WG Chair about 
appropriate responses to different actions -- and then delegate 
authority, either to the Chair, an AD, an IESG-designated 
committee or subcommittee, or some combination of them that made 
sense.  If we try to figure out those circumstances and rules in 
advance, we will end up with very long procedural documents that 
will always be responding to previous battles and wars.

(2) The -01 version of this, if there is one, needs 
spell-checking.

(3) The procedural change I'd most like to see --not, in any 
sense, the one that is the most important, but one of those I 
find most irritating -- would result in an Internet Draft with 
two or three pages of substance not ending up nine pages long. 
I think those 8 1/2 pages are yet another symptom that things 
have gotten somewhat out of hand.

    john

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr