Re: [irsg] Follow up on disruptive person during IETF 119

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 22/03/2024 01:03, Jay Daley wrote:
> IESG / WG Chairs
> 
> The background here is that we had one individual disrupt a number of
> sessions, including the plenary, and we were required to first
> temporarily ban them and then permanently ban them.

I support the various ideas as to session chairs being able to
handle situations like this better and am fine if those evolve a bit
over time.

But, I have a question: what does "permanently" mean in the above, for
this person? My impression was of an individual who was confused about
how to interact with the IETF and perhaps additionally confused as well.
I'm not sure that their behaviour from this week warrants a lifetime
ban from the IETF, in fact, I'm pretty sure it ought not.

So, Jay can you engage with IESG to figure out how permanent you think
this ought be? (I don't think there's any rush on getting that done
btw.)

Cheers,
S.



> 
> The meetings team (LLC, Secretariat, NOC, Meetecho, Tools) have
> discussed this and we propose the following way forward to manage
> similar instances in the future.
> 
> 1.  Maintain a trust-based approach with an exception process, rather
> than introduce new controls to lock/unlock a whole session.  We think
> approach both maintains the permissive culture of the IETF and avoids
> extra complexity for WG Chairs.
> 
> 2.  Add a new feature in Datatracker that allows the Secretariat to
> remove a participant from a session and more permanently.  The
> technical details here are that this feature will revoke their
> registration permissions and call a Meetecho API to remove them.
> 
> 3.  For single session removal this new process can be invoked by a
> WG chair (of the session) or an AD, contacting the Secretariat.
> Permanent removal can only be authorised by me or Roman, normally
> after rapid consultation with the IESG.
> 
> Does this work for everyone?
> 
> Jay
>