That's the reason the process model delegates handling such problems to
specific individuals, rather than having all of us, together, participate in
the review and assessment.
Actually, 3683 specifically requires community discussion of motions to
block someone's posting rights. It is, in so many words, done by a
Last Call.
I was too cryptic.
Were we only subject to discussion of a 3683 Last Call and were that
discussion limited to the actual merits of the complaint, we would have very,
very little ietf list traffic in this realm.
What actually happens is that we get lots of list discussion at each step
along the way, starting with individual pique at a claimed offense, individual
pique that someone posted a note stating their individual pique, endless
discussion about proper process, and endless discussion about abuses of process.
My point about delegation is that it is based on a desire to offload
some/much/most/all of a task so that the full community is not burdened with
all of the details. The difference between the "some/much/most/all" of course
depends upon how much of the burden the community wants to retain.
The concept of a public Last Call, for the disciplinary process, suggests that
only the final stage of the process needs to be fully public.
If we are going to get the desired benefit that comes from delegating things,
we need to be more selective in what is discussed publicly. That's not a call
for censorship. It is a call for discipline.
For one thing, debating the official details of process requirements should
almost certainly be taken offline from the IETF list.
For another, individual pique is best pursued either by private exchange or
through formal complaint. Neither requires burdening the full IETF list.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf