On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 04:39:39AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
So, I have to repeat the question that someone else asked: aren't
you just proposing to have the sergeant-at-arms job performed
more aggressively? (Not that I am criticising Jordi in any way -
he has been limiting himself to fairly extreme cases, and he's been
dinged for doing even that minimum.)
From what Stephen said, no. Instead, it sounds like the plan is to
appoint some people as behaviour moderators, who are specifically
looking for early signs of bad behaviour and who will, doubtless,
first call out such behaviour privately, then publicly; only later
will the Sergeant-at-Arms be invoked, and it is hoped that doesn't
become necessary.
I suppose that in practice what's really being admitted is that we're
not doing this ourselves already informally, and this is a way to
formalize that sort of desirable social pressure without acutally
creating more Official Jobs and Procedures. I like that aspect of
this proposal, because I don't think that bullies and so on are
effectively controlled by elaborate rules but are quite effectively
handled by the right sorts of social pressure. The danger, of course,
is that we end up with a group of self-satisfied smuggies who turn
into the new IETF bully class. Presumably, the rest of us will still
have a job to do in preventing that.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com