Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion

I'm replying to the first message in this thread but I have kept up with
the discussion to date.

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

    (1) There is rough consensus among the people active on this list
    that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting privileges of
    disruptive participants with AD approval and the possibility of
    appeal.

There is one point that has not been made in this discussion far.
Personally, I believe a Working Group Chair should have the authority to
revoke posting privileges and further believe they would have it if it
was not explicitly assigned to the IESG by documented procedures.

I say this because I view a mailing list as an extension of a meeting,
if not as a meeting itself.  In a physical meeting a Chair is well
within their authority to have a disruptive participant removed.  Most
working groups are not run strictly according to Robert's Rules of Order
but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

The "check" in a physical meeting is the person won't be removed if the
Chair does not get the support of the other participants.  The balance
is a person can always appeal to the AD/IESG.

So why should it be any different for a mailing list?  Do we really need
to document this?

    (2) There is rough consensus among the people active on this
    list that the details of James' proposal are too process-heavy,
    and that we need a lighter-weight proposal.

I agree.  If there's a process at all I can see a fairly lightweight
documentation of a process:

1. one private warning
2. one public warning
3. revocation of privilege

Perhaps the public warning needs to stand for a week before the posting
is actually revoked.  This ensures that if the community disagrees with
the revocation there is sufficient time to comment.

I can also imagine an escalating revocation period, perhaps a week to
start, then a month, then 3 months, then 6 months, and then a year.  But
perhaps too short a period will make it used too quickly and too often
so we should start with a month or three.  This can certainly be
discussed further.

And a participant who has had posting privileges revoked can always
appeal to the relevant AD.  The AD should have the authority to act
without the full consensus of the IESG.  I think this is important only
because the IESG may need at least 2 weeks to formally react at all.

And the basis for revoking posting privileges should be "obvious when it
is present."  Someone objected to that characterization but I think it
is just fine.  The working group has a charter and there is a reasonable
understanding and expectation of forward progress and what it means.  If
a working group agrees with the Chair I don't see a serious problem.

And there is always the appeal.

    Would anyone object if we made a proposal to the IESG to
    try such an experiment?  Does anyone want to write up a
    specific proposal along those lines?  James, do you want
    to try again?

I don't believe an experiment would be useful.  I just don't believe
there will be enough data points to make it useful.

I suggest we simply start with a fairly simple process and procedures
and incrementally revise it as needed.  The most important thing we need
is the understanding that revoking posting privileges is a legitimate
implementation of a reaction to disruptive individuals.  That's all.  A
Chair's job is to run a meeting and revoking posting privileges is not
much different than withholding the microphone or "revoking the floor."

Keep in mind a person can always get their input heard.  As has been
pointed out elsewhere they can still read the messages, check out the
archive, and send private messages to whoever they want.  This is no
different than being banned from a physical meeting and needing to talk
one-on-one with other participants about your point of view.

Jim

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