Subject: Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:16:37 +0100

At 09:35 17/02/2006, IETF Chair wrote:
>The IESG today makes the following statement, but will welcome
>community feedback on it.

Dear Brian,
Comments embedded.

>According to RFC 2418 as updated by RFC 3934, WG chairs have
>the power to suspend disruptive posters on WG mailing lists for
>periods of 30 days. However, this power is not documented
>for the moderators or maintainers of IETF mailing lists that
>are not WG mailing lists.

There is a need for a definition of who is what. Typically a list may 
have several moderators ignored by its members.

>  In the absence of a BCP or
>RFC 3933 procedure to cover this case, and as part of its
>responsibility under RFC 2026 to organize and manage the
>Internet Standards process, the IESG has decided as follows:
>
>The administrators of such lists are authorized to suspend disruptive
>posters for periods of not more than 30 days, typically after one or
>more explicit and public warnings, and consultation with an Area Director.

I understand the lack of definition of the Area. I suggest that 
decisions name the consulted Area Director.
This decision is not complete. It should define who are to be on the 
appeal cycle.

>Administrators may also follow the moderation guidelines at
>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt
>
>The list of IETF mailing lists that are not WG mailing lists
>is maintained at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi
>where the administrators are listed.

Is it for a reason that you use "administrator" here and "moderators 
or maintainers" up there?
This is a formal delegation of authority. A formal decision of the 
IESG to initially accept a non-WG list should be issued.
This also means that when the purpose descirbed in the nwg_list is 
deprecated, the list loses its privileges without other decision.

I hope this helps.
jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:27:39 -0500

>>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[email-masked]> writes:

    JFC> I understand the lack of definition of the Area. I suggest
    JFC> that decisions name the consulted Area Director.  This
    JFC> decision is not complete. It should define who are to be on
    JFC> the appeal cycle.

I actually think this is a good suggestion.  We could add area
directors to the non-wg email lists page and where none is listed, the
appeal chain would be moderator, directly to IESG.

    >> The list of IETF mailing lists that are not WG mailing lists is
    >> maintained at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi

    JFC> Is it for a reason that you use "administrator" here and
    JFC> "moderators or maintainers" up there?  

Yeah.  I wrote one paragraph and Brian wrote the rest and we failed to
make sure we were using the same words.  Thanks for the catch.