On Tuesday, July 22, 2014, Ted Lemon <ted(_dot_)lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Jul 22, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net
<javascript:;>> wrote:
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
As Spencer said, this is good text. However, it's worth noting that we
/really do/ have a problem here, and we need to do something about it.
What Pete proposed was /really/ mild: he proposed that when people exhibit
certain behavior patterns, they be asked to step back--to count to ten, as
Vint said. Is that actually an unreasonable thing to be doing?
I agree with the hall monitor comment--we really don't want to turn this
into a new, improved IETF bullying system. If that's what this looks like
to people who are objecting, we probably ought to try to figure out why,
and whether there's something we can do to mitigate that concern.
I suggest that the moderators share a mailing list with a private
archive and copy said list on all private comments.
That way, first, the moderators can monitor themselves as a group, and the
Sargent-at-arms and those with a need to know can access the archive should
there be a complaint about a moderator's comments.
Chris.
--
Chris Elliott
CCIE # 2013
“You and I are mirages that perceive themselves”
--Douglas Hofstadter