Re: [mpowr] Mailing List Management

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, James Kempf wrote:

> Suppose that in order to join an IETF WG mailing list, a person
> would have to agree to a mailing list "Code of Conduct" ... 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 believe the above would be a step in the right direction: having
formal IETF membership. From technical point of view, this does not
preclude anonymous membership; I am not sure about the legal point of
view. This does not imply membership fees, from any point of view.

For many automation tools, such as ID publication and review
management, formal membership is essential. It is also a shame and a
problem that IETF does not seem to know how many informal members it
has, even approximately; not to mention their technical background and
country of origin. Thus, if the legal burden is low, formal membership
(i.e., registration) is a good thing, IMO.

However, I would be [pleasantly] surprised if you can get consensus on
the formal membership issue. You do not have to call it formal
membership, but what your propose is, essentially, formal membership.

> 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

Sounds reasonable to me. To protect the innocent better, I would
require that the suspect being CCed on all related correspondence with
the AD.

> for a three month period.

This should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The rule should have a
maximum suspension period and no minimum. The rule can recommend a 15
day suspension for first time offenders
(10 day suspension for children; sorry, could not resist).

> The participant could appeal to the IESG if (s)he felt that (s)he
> was being treated unfairly.

As always.

Alex.

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