Subject: Sergeant-at-arms engagement model

From: IETF Sergeant-at-Arms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:40:53 -0400

RFC 3005 establishes the charter for the IETF discussion list, [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>. It provides for the IETF Chair to appoint Sergeants-at-Arms (SAA) to help manage postings to this list. Matthew Miller and Dhruv Dhody are the current sergeants-at-arms.

The SAA team (Matthew, Dhruv, and Alissa) have been working on documenting the SAA engagement model, operating procedures, guidelines and email templates to help us make our communications consistent and clear. That guidance is collected in the GitHub repository < https://github.com/ietf/saa <https://github.com/ietf/saa> >.

We will be using this engagement model from now on. We consider it to be a work-in-progress, though, and will be looking for ways to improve it as we gain more experience with it. We would welcome you to file GitHub issues or send us email at < [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > with your feedback.

Regards, 
Sergeant-at-Arms Team

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 10:51:10 -0500

Hi,

Considering my previous experience as Sergeant-at-arms, I think Level 2 is insufficient in many cases.

14 days is too short, or alternatively, you must have a “Level 3” for SAA defined periods of time in case of persistent/reiterated violations, even permanent removal of posting rights in extreme cases.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 11/10/19 10:43, "ietf en nombre de IETF Sergeant-at-Arms" <[email-masked] en nombre de [email-masked]> escribió:

RFC 3005 establishes the charter for the IETF discussion list, [email-masked]. It provides for the IETF Chair to appoint Sergeants-at-Arms (SAA) to help manage postings to this list. Matthew Miller and Dhruv Dhody are the current sergeants-at-arms.

The SAA team (Matthew, Dhruv, and Alissa) have been working on documenting the SAA engagement model, operating procedures, guidelines and email templates to help us make our communications consistent and clear. That guidance is collected in the GitHub repository < https://github.com/ietf/saa >.

We will be using this engagement model from now on. We consider it to be a work-in-progress, though, and will be looking for ways to improve it as we gain more experience with it. We would welcome you to file GitHub issues or send us email at < [email-masked] > with your feedback.

Regards, 
Sergeant-at-Arms Team

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 08:52:38 -0700

Alissa,

Thanks for posting this. I think it's progress in the right direction and
the engagement model looks solid.

I see that there are a bunch of open issues in the "Unprofessional
Commentary" definition. Can you say more about how you plan to evolve that?

-Ekr

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 8:43 AM IETF Sergeant-at-Arms <[email-masked]> wrote:

> RFC 3005 establishes the charter for the IETF discussion list,
> [email-masked]. It provides for the IETF Chair to appoint
> Sergeants-at-Arms (SAA) to help manage postings to this list. Matthew
> Miller and Dhruv Dhody are the current sergeants-at-arms.
>
> The SAA team (Matthew, Dhruv, and Alissa) have been working on documenting
> the SAA engagement model, operating procedures, guidelines and email
> templates to help us make our communications consistent and clear. That
> guidance is collected in the GitHub repository <
> https://github.com/ietf/saa >.
>
> We will be using this engagement model from now on. We consider it to be a
> work-in-progress, though, and will be looking for ways to improve it as we
> gain more experience with it. We would welcome you to file GitHub issues or
> send us email at < [email-masked] > with your feedback.
>
> Regards,
> Sergeant-at-Arms Team
>

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 23:31:24 +0700

> Commentary" definition. Can you say more about how you plan to evolve that?

Yeah, the Github page contains a circular definition (one instance
of "Unprofessional Commentary" is "Unprofessional Commentary"...)

What are the boundaries around raising issues that are sure to offend some
set of people? For example, the IETF's use of Github might be objectionable
to some:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-10/microsoft-employees-call-to-end-github-ice-contract

I think the rules are pretty clear when someone is spamming / swearing /
etc.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 08:39:10 +1300

I appreciate this effort, but I do have some doubts about:

> ...file GitHub issues or send us email at < [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > with your feedback.

as feedback mechanisms for what is genuinely a topic for everyone on this list. So I prefer to comment here. Also I hope we'll see the final version on the ietf.org site.

There's a basic issue that should probably be recognised somehow in the text: in the end, *all* decisions in this area are subjective. unprofessional-commentary.md attempts to define the subjective term "unprofessional" but relies on various subjective terms:  insulting, excessively hostile (BTW, that implies that some amount of hostility is OK), hurtful, disruptive. I think we already have evidence that people disagree about the threshold for these terms. So like it or not, the judgment is in the end subjective (and that's why, IMHO, it's good that we have an SAA team rather than an individual).

A nit while I'm here: doxxing really isn't a subset of violence. It's a different category of unacceptable.

In sop.md, under "Immediate escalation in egregious cases", I think it should be strengthened to allow immediate escalation to level 2 (an immediate posting ban) in some cases. I'm pretty sure an immediate ban has been used in the past against behaviour that amounted to a DOS against the list. We don't want to unintentionally rule that out.

    Brian

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 16:34:46 -0500

On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 08:39:10AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> as feedback mechanisms for what is genuinely a topic for everyone on
> this list. So I prefer to comment here. Also I hope we'll see the
> final version on the ietf.org site.

I'm guessing they were hoping to keep this from exploding on list.  With
all the controversy we've had, that seems optimistic.  In any case, this
discussion does have to happen on-list.

> There's a basic issue that should probably be recognised somehow in
> the text: in the end, *all* decisions in this area are subjective.
> unprofessional-commentary.md attempts to define the subjective term
> "unprofessional" but relies on various subjective terms:  insulting,
> excessively hostile (BTW, that implies that some amount of hostility
> is OK), hurtful, disruptive. I think we already have evidence that

Some amount of hostility has to be OK.  Especially when the leadership
and/or the SAAs themselves behave questionably.

I hope we won't be seeing any more cases of ADs being reprimanded
off-list while non-leadership participants get reprimanded on-list.
That sort of thing will send hostility through the roof, exactly as it
should, and indeed, has.

> people disagree about the threshold for these terms. So like it or
> not, the judgment is in the end subjective (and that's why, IMHO, it's
> good that we have an SAA team rather than an individual).
> 

We should be careful not promote unacceptable behavior to the status
"violence" when it isn't.  Doxxing certainly can lead to credible
threats of immediate violence, which isn't far from "violence", and
definitely at the "threatening violence" stage.  Still, it would be
shocking to ever have that kind of event happen on our lists or physical
meetings (if it has and I was not aware of it, well, let me know and
consider me shocked).

Nico
--

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 18:55:51 -0400

On 10/11/2019 12:31 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:54 PM Eric Rescorla <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
> What are the boundaries around raising issues that are sure to offend 
> some set of people? For example, the IETF's use of Github might be 
> objectionable to some:
> I think the rules are pretty clear when someone is spamming / swearing 
> / etc.
>
> thanks,
> Rob

  Please see my commentary on "respectful" "professional" and 
"considerate" at the end of 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2KfRrnvmpra7BDKICXsfQW1G7Rk 
as well as my comments on SAA do's and don'ts at 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pKBtsdVwLY3k8dkml3Wy3oANAJU. 
You've addressed only 1 of my 9 points (#2)

One of the issues we keep having is what are the  boundaries of 
basically ... (*sigh* translating to PC - it's hard to give up idioms 
that have been OK for most of my life ) calling a particular garden tool 
what is is rather than calling it a shovel.

Is a truthful statement "unprofessional" in the "profession" of the 
IETF? (cf our recent discussions on tone policing for the wide range of 
thoughts on this).

I'd like to see something like

>   Lying, being disingenuous,
> deflecting, distracting, ignoring are unprofessional; calling out lying,
> disingenuousness, deflection, distraction, and ignoring when there is
> substantial indication of one of these is not only not unprofessional,
> but required in a consensus based community for the community to
> continue to operate.

Entered into the discussion of what's unprofessional.

Lastly, I'd strongly recommend that the SAA be divorced from the Chair 
similar to the way that the Ombudsteam is.  E.g. chair appoints, SAA 
acts on their own without chair input.  Chair can replace at any time.   
Larger team than is currently there and works with the ombudsteam to 
resolve issues at dispute between the community (e.g. not just one 
person pushing back) and the SAA team.

Later, Mike

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 15:02:57 -0400

On 10/11/19 11:40 AM, IETF Sergeant-at-Arms wrote:

> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>. It provides for the IETF Chair 
> to appoint Sergeants-at-Arms (SAA) to help manage postings to this 
> list. Matthew Miller and Dhruv Dhody are the current sergeants-at-arms.
>
> The SAA team (Matthew, Dhruv, and Alissa) have been working on 
> documenting the SAA engagement model, operating procedures, guidelines 
> and email templates to help us make our communications consistent and 
> clear. That guidance is collected in the GitHub repository < 
> We will be using this engagement model from now on. We consider it to 
> be a work-in-progress, though, and will be looking for ways to improve 
> it as we gain more experience with it. We would welcome you to file 
> GitHub issues or send us email at < [email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]> > with your feedback.

Thanks for posting this.

IMO, it's dangerous for the SAAs to be defining their own rules for IETF 
list speech without the backing of community consensus. And yet, reading 
the "rules", I also see and appreciate that there's an attempt to anchor 
them in consensus documents where such documents speak to the issues of 
concern.   In the absence of sufficient direction from consensus 
documents, documenting the SAA's assumptions and interpretations of 
consensus rules could be constructive.   I do expect, however, that 
these rules be discussed and reviewed publicly (not on a private list, 
and certainly not on a proprietary service like GitHub), and that formal 
IETF community review and consensus needs to be obtained going forward.  
I don't believe that the "rules" should be enforced or considered 
binding until such consensus has been obtained.

It is disturbing, and I believe inappropriate, that the email message 
announcing these "rules" requests feedback through private and 
extra-IETF channels.    GitHub requires people to sign up with GitHub 
before filing issues, which facilitates tracking by GitHub and perhaps 
other parties, and is detrimental to the privacy of participants in the 
discussion.

Perhaps more importantly, the effort to divert discussion of this issue 
of tremendous importance to the IETF list, away from the IETF list and 
from the IETF itself, seems likely to have the effect of "burying" a 
discussion of tremendous importance.

One of my larger concerns about both RFC 3005 and the notes on GitHub is 
that there's no effective oversight or accountability of the SAA for 
their actions.   While the nature of SAA actions is that they should be 
kept confidential, it has become apparent that the SAA seems to want to 
act on its own, stretching the bounds of IETF consensus ruling, and also 
that it can have a chilling effect on IETF discussion.  Therefore I 
believe that record-keeping of SAA deliberations and actions has become 
essential.   Such records should be confidential by default, but made 
available to IAB at any time for review (whether or not in response to 
specific complaints).   A retention policy for such records should also 
be part of the record-keeping.

RFC 3005 says that complaints about SAA actions should be referred to 
IAB, but doesn't explain what power IAB should have to correct actions 
of the SAAs.   This situation should be addressed.

I appreciate that the notes on GitHub acknowledge that "professional" is 
a very ambiguous term.   I support efforts by the IETF community (NOT 
merely the SAAs) to define "professional" in IETF context.  Similarly, 
"disruptive" is also ambiguous and needs clarification.

The words "They also include criticizing an idea in an insulting or 
excessively hostile manner" are troubling.   I realize that one may 
criticize an idea in such a way as to effectively be critical of the 
person proposing the idea.  And yet, it is essential that people be able 
to discuss ideas candidly, and sometimes to criticize ideas 
emphatically.   I believe it's inappropriate to impugn a participant's 
motive without supporting evidence of that motive.  But I don't believe 
it's wrong to point out any problem with an idea itself, nor with 
potential ill effects of an idea, nor even with the appearance of an 
idea.   Sometimes this is a fine line, but it's essential that the SAAs 
not interfere with vigorous discussion of relevant ideas.

Keith

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:04:12 +0900

IETF Sergeant-at-Arms wrote:

> list. Matthew Miller and Dhruv Dhody are the current
> sergeants-at-arms

Yes, but, have you really read the rfc, which mentions
"the IETF Executive Director", too.

> That guidance is collected in the GitHub
> repository < https://github.com/ietf/saa
> <https://github.com/ietf/saa> >.

As the guideline says:

	considered inappropriate according to RFC 3005 or
	the Unprofessional Commentary Description

something considered inappropriate according to not rfc3005
but "the Unprofessional Commentary Description" only will be
censored without community consensus to do so.

					Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:10:28 +0900

Keith Moore wrote:

>  person proposing the idea.  And yet, it is essential that people be
> able to discuss ideas candidly, and sometimes to criticize ideas 
> emphatically.   I believe it's inappropriate to impugn a
> participant's motive without supporting evidence of that motive.  But
> I don't believe it's wrong to point out any problem with an idea
> itself, nor with potential ill effects of an idea, nor even with the
> appearance of an idea.   Sometimes this is a fine line, but it's
> essential that the SAAs not interfere with vigorous discussion of
> relevant ideas.

Let me try.

IPv6 with unnecessarily lengthy 16B addresses without valid
technical reasoning only to make network operations prohibitively
painful is a garbage protocol.

LISP, which perform ID to locator mapping, which is best
performed by DNS, in a lot less scalable way than DNS
is a garbage protocol.

					Masataka Ohta

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:20:01 -0400

Hi Ekr, all,

> On Oct 11, 2019, at 11:52 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Alissa,
> 
> Thanks for posting this. I think it's progress in the right direction and the engagement model looks solid.
> 
> I see that there are a bunch of open issues in the "Unprofessional Commentary" definition. Can you say more about how you plan to evolve that?

The SAA team will be periodically reviewing all the issues raised on this list, shared privately with [email-masked], and posted on Github. We’ll discuss them with the community and amongst ourselves and incorporate updates depending on the outcome of those discussions. We will fit the rounds of review into our schedules when we can, so people who send in issues should not expect immediate action in response.

Relatedly, a few people asked about sending feedback to this list. We will include such feedback in our rounds of review but we’re not likely to have cycles to respond to each comment on the list.

Best,
Alissa

> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 8:43 AM IETF Sergeant-at-Arms <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:22:11 -0400

Hi Masataka,

> On Oct 15, 2019, at 3:04 AM, Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

This text is removed by draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd, which is in the RFC Editor’s queue.

Best,
Alissa