On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 06:04:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
"i" == The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> writes:
i> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
i> consider the following document:
i> - 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions '
i> <draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-01.txt> as a BCP This document
i> abolishes the existing form of indefinite Posting Rights Action
i> solicits final comments on this action. Please send any
i> comments to the iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
mailing lists by
i> 2006-09-25.
Folks, we've received very little feedback on this document. I'd like
to see more discussion--so if you have reviewed this document please
drop the iesg or ietf lists a quick note; perhaps you can even tell us
what you think.
First of all, I am an Area Director who rarely speaks out in public as
I believe that my role is more of listening, mediating and dealing
with administrative issues that make the IETF work. However, there are
cases where it is important that the community sees the perspective of
an Area Director.
RFC 3883 has proven to me as an Area Director to be a very effective
tool to deal with extremely abusive behavior of a select few.
draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-01 will set us back in time as we will
need to have the whole management chain involved again to take actions
against abusive behavior by individuals who have been known to move
their behavior from one mailing list to another and who have clearly
shown that they have no interest in contributing to the IETF.
The PR action has allowed us to deal very efficiently with these rare
but existing cases. It takes a serious effort to get them started,
which is very reasonable considering that it is a very serious action,
but it works very well when it finally is in place. If you believe
that it is good that the IESG spends more of it's time on management
issues regarding this kind individuals,
draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-01 does exactly what you want. The IESG
will have to have over and over again the same review and discussion
about the same individual whether her/his posting privileges need to
be suspended.
I have experienced as an AD that regular suspensions simply don't work
with certain people as they simply don't modify their behavior, no
matter how many warning they get, how many suspensions are used, or
how long the suspensions are. The PR action is designed for these
cases, while draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-01.txt doesn't give us any
tool to deal with this problem.
I would also like to note that the same inviduals who have been
affected by PR actions, also have been the same individuals who have
abused our openmindedness towards our appeal process and who have
filed one meritless apeal after another, tieing up time and resources
of the IESG (and IAB) that could have been used otherwise. Not
everybody in the community might have noticed this, but the IESG (and
IAB) has spend a ridiculous amount of time in the past year or so on
appeals that had no merit whatsoever that came from the same people
who also happen to have been the subject of PR actions (see for
details: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Appeals.html). In fact it has come
to a point where at least some of us are extremely frustrated that we
have to dedicate as much time as we have been doing to issues like
this instead of carrying out our IETF mission.
Perversely enough, if we adopt draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-01, we
will also need to make much more often decisions to suspend people's
posting privileges opening us up to even more merit less appeals.
The PR action is actually a mechanism that is well documented and that
fits much better in our tradition of openness, as the Last Call makes
such a difficult decision a community decision as opposed to a large
number of suspensions that can be decided within the IESG which in
effect might equate to being a permanent suspension but without
community input.
In fact, the PR action tool could have been even more effective if the
sergeant-at-arms of this list would have taken more decisive action by
using an existing PR action to deal with another individual who might
not always be abusive in his tone, but who is definitely abusive
(denial of service attack) by the shear number of undecipherable mails
that are also often completely off topic and/or irrelevant for this
list.
draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-01 is also mingling two issues
together that should be dealt with separately:
- it clarifies that longer suspensions are allowed
- it rescinds RFC 3683
While I agree that longer suspensions should be allowed, I don't want
to give up the PR action for the most extreme situations. They are
both part of a continuum of options that are all needed, depending on
the situation.
To make matters worse, this document puts non working group IETF lists
in an even worse spot as the draft somehow decides not to deal with
exactly the same problem for non-working group mailing lists:
'Management of non-working group mailing lists is not currently
covered by this BCP, but is covered by relevant IESG Statements.'
To summarize, I hate the PR action tool as much as anybody else. It is
really sad that we had to use this tool and I am not proud that I
personally had to be involved with one as closely as I was. But there
really is no other alternative for those rare cases where somebody
simply doesn't have any interest in contributing to the IETF, but
instead seems intent on disrupting our work and chasing productive
people away.
David Kessens
---
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf