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
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.
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
--> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 9:19 PM
--> To: Jefsey Morfin
--> Cc: IETF Chair; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting
--> I think we disagree significantly on the level of formality needed
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
Administrators may also follow the moderation guidelines at
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.
--> Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list