Hi Frank,
[Posting as an individual and the author of RFC 3934. My views do
not necessarily represent the views of any group, particularly the
IESG or my employer.]
At 3:33 PM +0200 10/6/05, Frank Ellermann wrote:
And so far I think that
3934 is better than 3683, and a hypothetical 3934bis should
start with "obsoletes 3683".
RFC 3683 is quite different from RFC 3934. RFC 3683 allows the IESG
to suspend an individual's posting rights to all IETF lists (WG and
non-WG lists) for an indefinite period of time in a single action,
with no requirement for periodic review. RFC 3934 allows WG chairs
to suspend an individual's posting rights on a single WG mailing list
(the one on which the abuse actually occurred) for no more than 30
days.
I do have some serious concerns regarding RFC 3683, especially as it
is currently being discussed...
Personally, I think that the mechanism described in RFC 3683 is an
awfully large hammer. I don't feel comfortable with the fact that we
have crafted this hammer, nor with the fact that we might actually
use it. Use of this mechanism against an individual could be
detrimental to that individual's reputation and/or to his or her
career. I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea that we might
consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent, frequent and/or
hard-to-understand posts to be an abuse of the IETF consensus
process, as I am quite certain that I have fallen into many of those
categories from time-to-time. I am also personally appalled by the
fact that anyone would publicly agitate for use of this mechanism on
the IETF discussion list.
IMO, a 30-day suspension is adequate for most purposes, and RFC 3934
provides that there may be subsequent 30-day suspensions if there are
further instances of abuse.
I do think that an update to RFC 3934 may be called for. In
particular, I would like to update RFC 3934 to indicate that the
mechanism can be used by the owners of non-WG IETF lists, and to
define "the IESG" to be the owner of the IETF discussion list. I'd
also like to make it clearer that repeat offenses can result in
expedited action (i.e. no need for an addition round of
private/public warnings if a repeat offense occurs within 90 days of
reinstatement?).
I would also like to see the mechanism described in RFC 3683 formally
deprecated, probably by moving RFC 3683 to "Historic". However, it
seems clear that some people do support the existence and use of this
mechanism, so I don't know that we could reach IETF consensus to do
that.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf