The question about the proposed relationship between moderators and the
sergeant-at-arms is the interesting one to me. I can see the appeal of
having a class of moderators without the formal responsibilities of the
sergeant-at-arms but with an informal echo of authority, but I'm interested
to know how the authority of the moderators will be established and
maintained.
—james
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 7/22/14 1:07 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Perhaps instead - "We're considering approaches to manage noise on the
IETF list. One possibility discussed by the IESG is providing moderators to
remonstrate with the noise producers prior to action by the
sergeant-at-arms. The IESG would like to solicit comments on this and also
solicit guidance on other possibilities prior to making any decision".
I absolutely agree, with the caveat that "remonstrate" is probably a bit
strong. I'd hope that that the moderator would be there to guide the
discussion before remonstration is necessary.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478