Subject: RE: IESG Statement on disruptive posting

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:56:07 -0500

Sam,

	I re-inserted JFC's original text below.

	Just to be clear, it looks as if JFC has some misunderstanding
of IETF mailing lists, or - perhaps - knows of IETF mailing lists I
am not aware of.  Also, most of the "formality" he points out is both
reasonable, and not in disagreement with your later reply to JFC's
apparent response to you (I have not seen his response, so either it
did not get to the list, or it was off-line).

	For example, when JFC says that there is a need to define who
is what, he has a valid point.  I moderate the MPLS mailing list, but
there are others who are authorized to do so as well - including the
ADs and WG Chairs.  I assume this is true of other mailing lists as
well, and I do not think that it is obvious to everyone who is on the
list of people with authority to manage each list.

	Later, when JFC makes the comment that Brian's terminology use
is not consistent (Brian says "the moderators or maintainers of IETF 
mailing lists that are not WG mailing lists" in the beginning of his
message and "where the administrators are listed" later on), I think
he is providing a reasonable example of how this might not be clear.
If Brian is in fact talking about listed adminstrators, then JFC's
comment is already addressed.

	In talking about a decision to suspend anyone for "disruptive 
posting", it seems JFC is being reasonable in saying that a decision 
should name the AD consulted - assuming that the decision is formally
announced or that a formal notification is required (since the Brian 
explicitly states that an AD would be consulted).  Otherwise, it would 
be possible for any list manager to act unilaterally and he/she would 
only "get caught" if their decision is appealed.

	I believe that at least a formal notification must occur and it
must list those people involved in making the decision.  Otherwise, a
decision such as this 1) may be in effect for some time before the 
individual becomes aware of it and 2) be completely non remediable in
the case of wrong doing.

	It would also be good from the list administrator's perspective
if the notification was at least backed up by the consulted AD - if it
does not in fact come from the consulted AD(s).

	Finally, in making his point about "formal delegation", I think
JFC believes that there may be IETF mailing lists to which this set of
rules should not apply.  He may be right, if there are lists that are
maintained by the IETF site that do not properly belong under IESG
authority, or if there are lists maintained elsewhere that are kept on
behalf of the IETF, but do not fall under IESG authority.  I don't know 
that such lists exist, but it is possible that they do.  

	Would BoF mailing lists fall into this category?

	In any case, asssuming that JFC is not making an incorrect
assumption, then he is correct in his assertion that there should 
be an announcement that "such-and-such" list now falls under the
IESG authority and a similar one - but with reversed sense - should 
any list stop being under the IESG authority, at least within the
context of Brian's announcement.

	I do not think that such lists properly exist, but their (non) 
existence is what is at issue - rather than the formality of a list 
management process.

	I believe the default assumption should be that any mailing
list maintained at the IETF site falls naturally and formally under
IESG authority.  However, how does this work for lists not actually
maintained at the IETF mailing list site?

	In your later reply to JFC's (invisible) mail, you said:

	"The IAB said that we need to have clear and public 
	documentation of what we're doing.  So people need to 
	know what the rules are and need to know how to appeal
	decisions and how to disagree with rules."

I do not see a fundamental difference between what you say and
what JFC said previously.

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
--> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:19 PM
--> To: Jefsey Morfin
--> Cc: IETF Chair; [email-masked]
--> Subject: Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting
--> 
--> I think we disagree significantly on the level of formality needed
--> here.
--> 

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
--> 

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 03:00:08 +0100

Dear Eric,
I certainly agree with all your synthesis.
I just want to clarify about the lists "I would know".

There are lists which may have a receive "considerable discretionnary 
powers" such as IANA registry reviewers. They need authority. Such 
lists are the lists I considered. After all ICANN is only a "list" 
for reviewing names and numbers which developped.

As a general rule I think there should be simple consistency. Brian's 
document gives the owner of a list the same capacity as a WG Chair. A 
WG is created by a Charter proposed by someone (as for the non-WG 
lists), but approved by the IESG and reviewed by the IAB. To be on 
the non-WG list you need an AD approval. I suggest that the lists 
wanting to have access to RFC 3934 simply asks for an IESG approval. 
I am sure ADs can easily make a difference.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:56:53 +0100

Eric,

Gray, Eric wrote:
...
> 	... there is a need to define who

That is the reason for the specific reference to the administrators
listed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi.
> 
> 	... the comment that Brian's terminology use
> message and "where the administrators are listed" later on), 

It's not *my* terminology, it's an IESG statement.
The inconsistent language in the two parts of the statement has
been noted.

> ... reasonable in saying that a decision 
> should name the AD consulted

Reasonable and should, yes.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi lists the
Areas, which gets you to a choice of two ADs at most, so the
responsible AD is not hard to find.

> must list those people involved in making the decision. 

Yes, I agree.

> does not in fact come from the consulted AD(s).

Not sure I see why, but I'd certainly expect the AD to be
copied.

> ... if there are lists that are
> authority, 

Those would not be at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi,
so would be out of scope.

> or if there are lists maintained elsewhere that are kept on

If they do, they *are* are at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi

> 	Would BoF mailing lists fall into this category?

If they are listed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi.

> ... there should 
> IESG authority 

Ideally yes, but since the list of such lists is public
at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi,
this is low on my list of change requests to the secretariat.

      Brian

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:18:14 +0100

I think we all are in agreement except on an idea Eudardo Mendez gave 
me. I will rephrase it as "if someting tastes as a WG, smells like a 
WG, its charter should be approved like for a WG". The non-WG list is 
only subject to the approbation of an AD. This opens the door to too 
many possible contention and COI suspicions. Logic and ethic calls 
for non-WG list receiving WG authority rights to be subject to WG 
creation cycle (obviously far faster). I think it should result from 
a simple change in the registration form and page display. It will 
say the status of the non-WG list approval and details. To be on the 
list an AD approval is enough. To get full WG priviledges the non-WG 
list will need to have the "IAB reviewed", "IESG approved",  Area and 
ADs, etc.

A last problem is the obsolescence of a non-WG list. I think it 
should be automatic. When the Registry or the RFC founding the 
interest of the non-WG list is obsoleted, the IAB and IESG stamps are 
automatically removed. This permits the list to continue operating. 
But it is no more liste delegated duties and rights.

jfc

At 18:56 21/02/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>>is not consistent (Brian says "the moderators or maintainers of 
>>IETF mailing lists that are not WG mailing lists" in the beginning of his
>>... reasonable in saying that a decision should name the AD consulted
>
>>behalf of the IETF, but do not fall under IESG authority.  I don't 
>>know that such lists exist, but it is possible that they do.
>
>>... there should be an announcement that "such-and-such" list now 
>>falls under the
>>IESG authority
>

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:53:20 -0500

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

    JFC> I think we all are in agreement except on an idea Eudardo
    JFC> Mendez gave me. I will rephrase it as "if someting tastes as
    JFC> a WG, smells like a WG, its charter should be approved like
    JFC> for a WG". The non-WG list is only subject to the approbation
    JFC> of an AD. This opens the door to too many possible contention
    JFC> and COI suspicions. Logic and ethic calls for non-WG list
    JFC> receiving WG authority rights to be subject to WG creation
    JFC> cycle (obviously far faster). I think it should result from a
    JFC> simple change in the registration form and page display. It
    JFC> will say the status of the non-WG list approval and
    JFC> details. To be on the list an AD approval is enough. To get
    JFC> full WG priviledges the non-WG list will need to have the
    JFC> "IAB reviewed", "IESG approved", Area and ADs, etc.

In principle this sounds fine.  My confusion stems from the fact that
it's actually more restrictions that are applied to IETF lists than
privileges.

Here is what an IETf list implies to me:

* open participation
* an appeals path
* open archive
* IETf IPR

What privileges do you see?

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:32:27 +0100

>What privileges do you see?

I am not sure about what you ask.
Their priviledge is to be an IETF list. This implies constraints 
(IESG approval, IAB charter review,...)
Their priviledge is reduced contrainst. AD approval is enough for 
those not deciding for the IETF. No Charter, just a few lines 
describing their topic.
jfc

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:35:47 -0500

>>  In principle this sounds fine.  My confusion stems from the
    >> fact that it's actually more restrictions that are applied to
    >> IETF lists than privileges.
    >> 
    >> Here is what an IETf list implies to me: * open participation *
    >> an appeals path * open archive * IETf IPR
    >> 

    JFC> I am not sure about what you ask.  Their priviledge is to be
    JFC> an IETF list. This implies constraints (IESG approval, IAB
    JFC> charter review,...)  Their priviledge is reduced
    JFC> contrainst. AD approval is enough for those not deciding for
    JFC> the IETF. No Charter, just a few lines describing their
    JFC> topic.  jfc

Normally when you want to require an approval process like chartering
it is because there is some power or authority being delegated to a
list.  If the only thing that being an IETF list gets you is
additional constraints, why do we need to have a complicated
chartering process?

Now if you propose that whenever an IETF list is given authority--over
a registry, over some approval process etc--it needs a charter and
that charter needs community review, I agree with you.

--Sam

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:30:35 +0100

>that charter needs community review, I agree with you.

All the lists on the non-WG page are IETF lists covered by the IETF 
copyrights, etc. These are their basic privilege. Obviously when you 
just keep alive a WG list, prepare a WG, investigate some testing, 
etc. you do not need something formal. But when it comes to a registry.

Also, this is something Brian does not seem to want to consider too 
much, but there may be legal implications to registry management and 
certainly political ones (ex. names and numbers, languages, etc.). 
Then you want a mutual formal link - to control/protect.

In the RFC 3066 Bis case, the question raised by Scott irt. the LSR 
could be IMHO addressed by a separate Draft. It would be a very 
formal way to describe a permanent organisation (but not more than in 
the case of names/numbers where there is an MoU with ICANN). The 
interest is that the Draft I propose would be formally approved by 
the IESG (under possible appeal to the IAB). It would be much more 
flexible and could serve as the IETF side in an MoU, if the job was 
delegated to another organization (I quoted Unicode, ICANN, ISOC, 
UNESCO,INCOTERM, ITU, etc.). Or accommodate its delegation to an 
individual like Michael Everson or me or anyone else. Even in the 
case the job is performed by a 20 people staff at UNESCO, the 
IETF/IAB/IESG would keep control over that non-WG list.

We see all the difficulties we face and this flexible approach 
permits to address. In the 3066 Bis case technical appeals are to the 
IESG and IAB. This means that if an African university disagrees on 
the way a Chinese scholar think a Eskimo dialect is written in 
Cyrillic in Peru, the IESG will have to decide. May be of interest to 
define some kind of advisory committee. IMHO a graduated approach 
permits this, while keeping authority/delegation consistent. NB. In 
case names and numbers, appeals have be left with ICANN. Appeals 
there are with their Ombudsman.

RFC 3066 Bis creates an interesting case. It says that the LSR 
moderates the list. This is consistent with the fact that the list is 
a IANA list. This means that the administration (RFC 3934 in the 
IETF) is with IANA, and that all the fuss made by Michael Everson is 
meaningless.

jfc