nick(_dot_)staff(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net wrote:
There are a couple of arguments consistently used as by the
pro-ban/anti-filter camp that kind of confuse me
Yes, RfC 3683 can obviously have a very high "troll"-factor.
Since the first PR-Action was only a few months ago
The "last call" ended in December. IMO both 3934 and 3683 are
mainly of interest for folks with "hats", editors, Chairs, ADs,
because they can't simply filter contributors, at least not as
simply as others without "hats". Besides I fear their private
inbound is flooded by complaints in the case of conflicts. So
it's mainly for them that they can ban contributors, and it's
for "us" (TINU) that they can't simply decree whatever pleases
them, but follow some procedures like 3005, 3934, and 3683.
IMHO Sam's / John's / Margaret's proposals are generally better
than RfC 3683. Hard to judge after only two last calls, but I
know this "excommunication" business from other communities.
IIRC there never was a public 3934 warning on _this_ list, and
if somebody isn't allowed to post on another list for some time
(s)he can simply post here. As long as it's not excessive this
list is rather harmless, nobody expects that e.g. Brian "must"
read all mails here.
For other lists the folks with "hats" need some way to defend
themselves from side-effects of flamewars hitting their private
inbound, and "we" (TINW) want them to do some more interesting
things like figure out a way to get "rough consensus" for the
technical issues, or help to find bugs and nits in drafts under
discussion.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf