So, let me make a few suggestions for getting us unstuck and
back to useful work.
(ii) Let's establish a convention (not a rule -- we would just
screw it up or get tangled in it) that, if a suspension action
is taken against someone whose native language is not English,
we attempt to deliver the suspension notice/ complaint in that
person's language as well as English if reasonably feasible. We
This is a well-intentioned suggestion.
However I believe it winds up implying that we have an obligation to translate
formal IETF language into another language. At the least, the presence of two
versions of the notice offer an opportunity for more confusion, not less. I
suggest, instead, that the notice / complaint language contain well-reviewed
boilerplate and that the boilerplate reviews include ease of understanding among
readers for whom English is a second language.
(iii) Again, as a convention, let's agree that, if someone is
suspended more than once for the same basic pattern of behavior,
that the suspensions should explicitly note the history of one
or more prior ones and warn that the community will not tolerate
behavior that results in serial suspensions indefinitely.
Multiple suspensions and such a warning should not become
requirements for taking a 3683 action (or any intermediate
action), but represent a reasonable courtesy and attempt to get
the behavior adjusted, which we should certainly prefer to
This sounds eminently reasonable. It leaves us with two mechanisms.
In general, the IETF community can probably juggle two mechanisms that pertain
to a participation problem. I'm not so sure it can juggle more.
One mechanism is a 30-day suspension and the other is permanent ban.
The first can be applied repeatedly, unless and until there is a reasonable
degree of frustration with the offender. Some offenses create that reasonable
degree in one occurrence. Others might never trigger it, even with multiple
suspension. Community rough consensus will nicely determine that threshold.
My personal
perspective is that I'd like to see 3683 actions under only two
circumstances. (i) some sequence of actions have been taken
which are so egregious and so obviously motivated by malice
toward individuals or the community that the community recoils
in collective outrage (or should do so) or (ii) there has been a
repeated pattern of suspensions for similar behavior from
different mailing lists and by different people, that the claim
can be made and supportive that the individual involved is
consistently disruptive and an IETF-wide response is in order.
Nicely said. I agree entirely and suggest this language be used for community
guidance.
(iv) Let us, quickly, follow up on some of the suggestions that
have been made recently to create intermediate steps by
generating a draft, under the RFC 3933 model, to permit some
intermediate measures. I'm particularly fond of reinstating the
authority of a WG Chair, with AD approval and subject to appeals
that do not suspend the action while they are being
investigated, to apply exponential back-off, if only because
suspend for 30 days
have new incidents on days 31 and 32.
spend two weeks going through the warn-review-and-suspend
proces again
suspend for 30 days
loop
model is intolerably inefficient if work is really being
disrupted.
Clearly the concern here is valid. It occurs to me, however, that there is
another way to view it:
If someone is going to keep being a repeated problem, quickly after being
re-instated, then the community will also quickly decide that the person
warrants permanent removal. For such people, it is better to get the hassle
over with sooner, rather than to draw things out.
Exponential backoff merely makes this inevitable outcome take longer.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf