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

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

At 02:05 PM 2/11/2004 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:

>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.

I prefer an approach that runs:  (1) Tune as needed, (2) Four week last 
call, (3) Publish.

I'd accept the experimental July 14 approach, though.

>(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.

I'm not sure that I fully agree....

I agree that a chair should not ban someone from a mailing list for longer
than 30 days by issuing back-to-back 30 day suspensions.  However, I do think
that a chair should be able to suspend a person for 30 days, let him back on
the list, and eventually suspend him for 30 days again if there is another
period of disruptive behaviour.

How about changing that final sentence to a separate paragraph that
says:

This mechanism is intended to permit a WG chair to suspend posting privileges
of a disruptive individual for a short period of time.  This mechanism does
not permit WG chairs to suspend an individual's posting privileges for
a period longer than 30 days regardless of the type or severity of the
disruptive incident.  However, further disruptive behaviour by the same
individual will be considered separately and may result in further warnings
or suspensions.  Other methods of mailing list control, including longer
suspensions, must be approved by the IESG or carried out in accordance with
other IESG-approved procedures.

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

Sorry, I produced it under a rather tight deadline.  I expect to publish
an -01 update shortly after Seoul (hopefully for IETF Last Call), and I'll
do better.

>(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.

Me, too.  Some of the length can be attributed to the fact that the
formatting tool I use puts each section on a new page.  Does anyone
know if there is an option in xml2rfc to override that?

But, there are at least 4 pages of overhead, most of which has very
limited utility.

Margaret


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