From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
I'm interested to know whether people would see arguments for
either or both of
1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a
dispute mediator.
2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning
procedures from the IESG.
Brian
Ahh, you beat me to the punch ;)
I'm a big fan of the netiquette committee. I'd like to suggest that
volunteers be allowed to "throw their names into the hat" and that members
be selected blindly from that pool. This would of course avoid any stacking
or favoritism, but we would need a "qualifier" that prevented interlopers
from submitting their name. Though I hate to suggest it as it would exclude
me from selection, having attended an IETF meeting in the last x years could
possibly be a good filter.
I'm probably getting ahead of things but I was also thinking some controls
could be implemented to discourage frivolous accusations. I realize that
someone who repeatedly accuses falsely won't be taken seriously, but
sometimes the goal is disruption and uncertainty which unfortunately these
accusations are almost guaranteed to provide.
Anyway I think it's a great idea Brian.
nick
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf