Re: [mpowr] Mailing List Management

AlexR,

> > For instance, nobody forces you to read my message.
> > If my message is disruptive to you, you could have:
> > - ignore it, and further
> > - configure a filter to send my messages on this thread, on this
> >   list, in this WG, etc.... directly to the TRASH folder.
>
> I had the same thought when reading this thread, but realized that
> installing a filter or otherwise ignoring a message is not a complete
> solution because it violates WG Chair responsibility to gauge
> consensus. If one could ignore or filter only "consensus-unrelated"
> messages, then we would have a perfect solution. Unfortunately,
> ignoring/filtering based on sender or subject line does not guarantee
> that all consensus-related messages will be read.
>
> However, it looks like filtering is a solution for everybody else (but
> the Chair). Participants do not have to gauge consensus so they can
> ignore whatever they want (and they often do!).
>
>
> Let's assume that everybody but the Chair are ignoring what they
> consider disruptive postings. In most cases, this is likely to solve
> the reported problem of disruptive postings blocking technical work.
> The poor Chair will have to listen to the lonely/loony voice(s) of the
> participant(s) being ignored and gauge consensus. In fact, the Chair
> becomes a de facto moderator in this context!
>
> This approach does not violate free speech. As you know, none of the
> countries guaranteeing free speech was able to guarantee that the
> speech will be heard or have any effect. With the Chair's implied
> obligation to listen, we are actually doing slightly better than most
> countries advertising their free speech laws!
>
> Can somebody with a real-life disruptive experience comment on this
> solution? Would it help in their specific cases?
>

I've had experience with disruptive participants on mailing lists, and the
answer is, no it would not help.

The problem is that when a disruptor appears, the good technical people tend
to leave. It is a little like spam, except there is an easy way to stop it -
unsubscribe from the mailing list. After a major incident of mailing list
disruption, a WG tends to get derailed and to lose effectiveness, and it can
become difficult for the chair to get the WG back on track. After more than
one incident, the good technical people tend to write the WG off as
"hopeless" and leave for other more productive venues.

The solution is to get the disruptor off the list as soon as possible,
before people begin to give up on the WG. Unfortunately, this does require a
judgement call on the part of the chair and the AD, and its possible that
they might judge wrong. That's why it is necessary to have an appeals
process for people who feel they've been treated unfairly. From the
experience I've had and talking with other WG chairs who have had similar
experiences, I feel that the risk of losing a WG to mailing list disruption
is much higher than having an autocratic chair that shuts someone out just
because they have a different technical opinion. Actually, I've never seen
an instance of the latter, and I know of at least two cases of the former.
So I believe that allowing the WG chair and AD to remove mailing list
participants with the particpant allowed to appeal to the IESG if they feel
treated unfairly is the right way to go. I believe that both WG chairs
should agree if there are co-chairs for the WG, and the AD should be
consulted.

However, I'm still undecided about whether the WG chairs should be allowed
to remove someone if the AD doesn't respond quickly enough, as John Klensin
has proposed. On the one hand, I see the need for speed, having experienced
the problems a lag can cause when an AD is busy elsewhere. On the other, I
believe the risk is much higher that a WG chair may make a wrong judgement
call if AD approval is not required.

            jak

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