[mpowr] Attagirl on draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update-00.txt, and a couple of corner cases...

I thought this draft captured the mailing list thoughts well, and the
capability does matter.

To move it forward, I thought about a few corner cases. I'll try to
separate my questions from my suggested answers, so please make sure
that each question matters before thinking about my answers, OK?

- we had mentioned the possibility that a WG chair suspends someone
for 30 days, and on the 31st day, they return just the way they left
before suspension. If someone was disruptive six months ago, is
suspended for a month, behaves for five months, and then returns to
bad habits (I could easily see this happening during a document last
call), can the working group chair take action as before?

spencer: the draft doesn't include the notion of "memory". My
suggestion is that the second incident is also suspendable, but that a
second suspension from a single working group mailing list is
automatically appealed to IESG (the way US capital punishment cases
are automatically appealed), so that the broader community can rule on
the WG chair's judgement without waiting for a telechat or two to roll
around.

- I thought there was community support for the idea that ADs don't
chair working groups in their own areas, but a number of area
directors are still WG chairs today, and most of the process mailing
lists (MPOWR, ICAR, others?) were initiated by ADs. We also have WGs
like TSVWG where both WG chairs are also TSV ADs. All of these WGs
should be able to protect their own mailing lists, but the "in
consultation with the responsible Area Director" doesn't seem to parse
well, if the goal was to guard against individual capriciousness.

spencer: my suggestion is to allow the AD/WG chairs the same ability
that non-AD WG chairs would have. If we're concerned about abuse, the
potential for abuse, or the perception of abuse, suspensions in these
cases could also be automatically appealed.

- IETF also hosts non-WG mailing lists, for example,
trigtran@ietf.org. Can a BoF chair, for instance, do the same thing as
a WG chair?

spencer: my suggestion is to allow BoF chairs the same tools with the
same restrictions. Since the whole point of a BoF is to form a
community, mailing list disruption seems especially DoSish for BoF
mailing lists.

- I'm really confused about what applies to ietf@ietf.org, since
there's only one General Area Director.

spencer: I'll ignore this for now.

- it seems implicit that all of the disruptive postings remain in the
mailing list archives unless they are illegal (posting child porn,
etc.). Should this be explicit?

spencer: I would think so.

Again, thank you, Margaret, for moving this forward.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <margaret@thingmagic.com>
To: <mpowr@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:26 AM
Subject: [mpowr] Fwd: I-D
ACTION:draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update-00.txt

>
> FYI --
>
> I attempted to capture our mailing list discussions in a (very
> short) draft.  Feedback will be appreciated.
>
> Margaret

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