Network Working Group L. Eggert, Ed.
Internet-Draft Mozilla
Intended status: Best Current Practice E. Lear, Ed.
Expires: 4 September 2025 Cisco Systems
3 March 2025
IETF Community Moderation
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-03
Abstract
The IETF will treat people with kindness and grace, but not endless
patience.
This document describes the creation of a moderator team for all the
IETF's various contribution channels. Without removing existing
responsibilities for working group management, this team enables a
uniform approach to moderation of disruptive participation across all
mailing lists and other methods of IETF collaboration.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://larseggert.github.io/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/draft-
ietf-modpod-group-processes.html. Status information for this
document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
modpod-group-processes/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the mod-discuss Working
Group mailing list (mailto:mod-discuss@ietf.org), which is archived
at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mod-discuss/. Subscribe
at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mod-discuss/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 September 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. General Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. IETF Moderator Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Team Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. Non-IETF Communication Channels And Private
Communications Excluded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2. IETF Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Operations of the Moderator Team and Transparency . . . . 7
2.4. Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5. Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6. Reinstatement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.7. Relation to the Ombudsteam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.8. Relation to the IETF LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.9. Relation to the IRTF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Changes to Existing RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
Appendix A. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-02 . . . . . . . 13
A.2. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-01 . . . . . . . 13
A.3. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-00 . . . . . . . 13
A.4. Since draft-ecahc-moderation-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Problems with the Previous Approach . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
This document proposes the creation of a moderator team for all the
IETF's various contribution channels. This moderator team is modeled
after, and subsumes, the moderator team for the IETF discussion list
[RFC9245]. This memo is applicable to *all* IETF participation
channels.
1.1. Background
The IETF community has defined general guidelines of conduct for
personal interaction in the IETF [RFC7154], and the IESG has defined
an anti-harassment policy for the IETF [AHP] for which the IETF
community has defined anti-harassment procedures [RFC7776],
empowering an ombudsteam [OT] to take necessary action.
Dealing with _disruptive_ behavior, however, is not part of the role
of the ombudsteam. [RFC3934] tasks the chairs of each IETF working
group with moderating their group's in-person meetings and mailing
lists, and an IESG statement [MODML] describes additional guidance to
working group chairs about how — but not when — to moderate their
lists.
For IETF mailing lists not associated with a working group, another
IESG statement [DP] clarifies that the list administrators are tasked
with moderation. And the IETF list for general discussions has,
mostly for historic reasons, a team of moderators that are not list
administrators and operate by a different set of processes [RFC9245].
Note that the term "moderation" can refer both to _preemptive_
moderation, where moderators review attempted participation before it
occurs (such as reviewing messages to a mailing list), and _reactive_
moderation, where moderators intervene after problematic
participation has occurred. The IETF historically mainly practiced
reactive moderation, with a spectrum from gentle reminders on- and
off-list, all the way to suspension of posting rights and other ways
of participating or communicating. It is up to the moderators to
decide which mix of preemptive and reactive moderation to employ as
part of their processes.
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
In addition, [RFC3683] defines a process for revoking an individual's
posting rights to IETF mailing lists following a community last-call
of a "posting rights" action (PR-action) proposed by the IESG, often
in response to complaints from the community.
Experience and community input suggests that an evolution of the
existing processes is necessary (see Appendix B).
1.2. General Philosophy
The cornerstone of our philosophy is first and foremost the
individual, whose responsibility is to further the goals of the
organization [RFC3935] in a manner consistent with the policy laid
out in [RFC7154]. The IETF is an open standards organization.
Engaged, respectful discussion that is within the scope of a forum
should not be considered abuse, nor should someone be considered
abusive solely because they are outside the rough consensus.
Disagreement and diverse points of view within any standards
organization are to be expected, and are even healthy. However, when
someone crosses the line into disruptive behavior, some action must
be taken in order to maintain decorum of the community.
The moderation policy goals are as follows:
* Apply consistent, fair, and timely moderation of communication
across all IETF channels without regard to one's position or
previous contributions;
* Disagreements about moderation actions are addressed through
appeals;
* Balance transparency against both privacy of individuals involved
and further disruption to the community;
* Allow moderators to reconsider decisions; and
* Provide the broadest possible latitude to moderators, so that they
may have the flexibility to address a broad range of individuals
and circumstances.
Questions about processes detailed below should be answered through
the lens of these aims.
The goal is explicitly *not* punishment, but to maintain an open,
welcoming, non-hostile environment in which all may participate on an
equal footing, regardless of their position or past contributions.
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
1.3. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted in their normal English sense; they
are shown in uppercase for emphasis and clarity.
| TODO: Get feedback from the community whether this redefinition
| of BCP14 terms in process documents is something they support.
2. IETF Moderator Team
This document proposes a different, uniform approach to moderating
the IETF's various participation channels: a moderator team for the
IETF. The creation of this team intends to address the issues
identified in the previous model Appendix B and the principles
described in the introduction.
2.1. Composition
The moderator team consists of no less than five individuals. The
IESG appoints and replaces moderators. In selecting members, the
IESG will take into account geographic coverage, expected and
unexpected absenses, and team diversity. The moderator team may
expand or contract based on operational experience. Apart from
appointing and replacing moderators, the IESG SHALL refrain from the
day-to-day operation and management of the moderator team. The
moderators MAY decide to consult with the IESG when needed.
Because the IESG and IAB are in the appeals chain for moderator team
decisions (see Section 2.5), the IESG MUST NOT appoint a moderator
who is serving on the IESG or IAB. Individuals serving on other
bodies to which the NomCom appoints members, such as the IETF Trust
or the LLC Board, as well as LLC staff and contractors SHALL also be
excluded from serving on the moderator team. If a moderator is
assuming any such role, they SHALL step down from the moderator team
soon after.
2.1.1. Team Diversity
Due to the global nature of the IETF, the membership of this team
SHOULD reflect a diversity of time zones and other participant
characteristics that lets it operate effectively around the clock and
throughout the year. Ideally, the moderators should be able to
respond to issues within a few hours.
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
Team diversity is also important to ensure any participant observing
problematic behavior can identify a moderator they feel comfortable
contacting.
2.2. Scope
The IETF moderator team is responsible for establishing processes to
address moderation needs across all IETF fora, both present and
future, including, but not limited to, mailing lists, chat channels,
and discussions in other systems that the IETF or WGs have chosen to
employ, such as GitHub repositories, Wikis, or issue trackers.
The moderators are authorized to moderate all non-working group fora,
including the IETF discussion and last-call mailing lists and all
non-WG mailing lists, as well as area mailing lists. This also
includes non-WG IETF-sponsored chat mechanisms.
Interactions with WGs are discussed below.
It is not expected that the moderators will be monitoring every IETF
channel, but rather that participants MAY and chairs SHOULD flag
concerns about disruptive behavior to the moderators. However, the
moderators SHOULD actively monitor a small set of key participation
channels, including, for example, the IETF discussion and last-call
mailing lists or the IETF plenary chat channel. The moderators
should decide which channels are in this set based on their own
judgment and community suggestions. (Note that some participation
channels, such as the examples given in the previous sentence, have
no chairs or other community leadership, so the moderators MUST
handle those.)
2.2.1. Non-IETF Communication Channels And Private Communications
Excluded
It is important to note that the moderator team only moderates
_public_ IETF participation channels. Their mandate does not extend
to problematic behavior in private channels, such as private chat
channels, direct messages, or conversations or other interactions
outside of meetings. In such cases, the Ombudsteam should be
approached.
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
2.2.2. IETF Working Groups
The management and moderation of participation channels associated
with various IETF groups, including their mailing lists, chat
channels and in-person, remote, or interim meetings remains primarily
a task of the relevant group's management, such as WG chairs.
However, moderators are available for consultation and assistance
should issues arise, and they MAY proactively confer with the group
management over potential patterns of behavior. Group participants
MAY and chairs MUST alert the moderators to problematic behavior that
rises to the level that some action is needed. Similarly, when
moderators observe or are alerted to problematic behavior on such
channels, they MUST consult with the group's management to jointly
determine an appropriate response.
Only when necessary MAY the moderators take actions against someone
in a working group setting, but they MUST inform management of
relevant groups, including WG chairs and area directors, when they do
so.
If working group management and moderators have a disagreement about
how to proceed in any given circumstance, before any further action
is taken, the matter should be taken up with the responsible area
director(s) for resolution, and, when more than one area is involved,
with the IESG.
It is anticipated that such disagreements will be exceedingly rare.
The moderators should respect the views of the group management in
such cases, and the group management should respect the moderators'
task of upholding an overall IETF-wide uniformity for moderation.
2.3. Operations of the Moderator Team and Transparency
Within the bounds of the policies set within this memo and with the
approval of the IESG, the moderator team SHALL define any additional
processes and moderation criteria necessary to execute their role.
Those processes and criteria SHALL be developed with community input
and made public, but need not be documented in the RFC series.
The intent of this memo is to provide the widest possible freedom of
action to the moderators, with a few constraints. Examples of
actions that could be taken include:
* Automated rate limiting mechanisms;
* Review and approval of submissions/messages;
* A private or public admonishment;
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
* Temporary or permanent bans in one or more fora.
We stress that these are only examples, and not in any way
prescriptive. The moderator team is free to decide on these actions.
The expectation is that the minimal action necessary to maintain the
comity of a forum will be attempted.
The moderator team is responsible to the IESG. The IESG MAY create
or designate a forum to facilitate discussion about moderation, and
refer interested parties to that forum. All actions taken by the
moderator team SHALL be reported to the IESG, as well as to those
against whom those actions are directed. All bans longer than
fourteen (14) days SHALL be reported to the forum in which the person
was banned, and in the case of a ban that spans more than one forum,
to the community in a manner decided by the IESG.
Content removal or redaction from IETF archives are not moderation
actions, and are therefore beyond the scope of this memo.
2.4. Training
The IETF is committed to providing and/or funding training for
appointed moderators as necessary. The IESG will negotiate any
required funding or resources with IETF Administration LLC [RFC8711].
2.5. Appeals
Because the moderator team serves at the discretion of the IESG, any
moderation decision can be appealed to the IESG by anyone, per
[RFC2026]. Disagreements with a decision by the moderator team can
be brought to their attention. If this does not lead to a
resolution, a decision by the IESG can be appealed to the IAB as
described in [RFC2026].
2.6. Reinstatement
People and circumstances change. Individuals who have been banned
from a forum may request to be reinstated. That request must be
directed to the entity that made the decision (e.g., moderation team,
working group chair, etc) or their successors, and that party may at
their discretion reinstate someone, conditionally or unconditionally.
Decisions to not reinstate someone may not be appealed. Requests for
reinstatement may be entertained only a year after the initial
decision, and then only annually.
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
A ban imposed prior to this process shall be reconsidered only in
accordance with the processes in place at the time of the ban, even
if the corresponding RFC has been formally obsoleted.
2.7. Relation to the Ombudsteam
The moderator team SHALL complement the efforts of the IETF
ombudsteam [OT], whose focus on anti-harassment and operation SHALL
remain unchanged. The moderator team and ombudsteam are expected to
work together in cases that may involve both disruptive behavior and
harassment; they may determine the most effective way to do so in
each case. For example, the ombudsteam MAY decide to have one of
their members serve as a liaison to the moderator team.
The ombudsteam has strict rules of confidentiality. If a moderation
case overlaps with an ombudsteam case, confidential information MUST
NOT be shared between the teams.
2.8. Relation to the IETF LLC
The Board of Directors of the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) has
fiduciary duty for the overall organization, which includes the duty
to protect the organization from serious legal risk that may arise
from the behavior of IETF participants.
This protection MAY include the need for the IETF LLC to take
emergency moderation actions. These emergency actions are expected
to be taken only when the IETF LLC has received legal advice that
such action is necessary, and therefore extremely rare in frequency.
Some examples of where this might be necessary are:
* Someone making credible threat of harm to other IETF participants.
* Someone using IETF mailing lists and/or websites to share content
where publishing that content on IETF lists and/or websites brings
serious legal risk.
* Someone making credible threats of legal action where any form of
interaction with them on IETF mailing lists may have serious legal
consequences for the IETF.
If any such action is taken, the IETF LLC SHOULD, except where
limited by legal advice to the contrary, inform the IESG as soon as
possible, providing full details of the subject of the action, nature
of the action, reason for the action and expected duration. The IETF
LLC SHOULD also inform the moderator team and IETF community, except
where it receives legal advice to the contrary.
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
As such an action would be taken by the IETF LLC in order to protect
the IETF according to its fiduciary duty, then it cannot allow that
to be overridden by a decision of the moderation team or the IESG.
The subject of any such action may request a review by the IETF LLC
board, as documented in section 4.7 of [RFC8711]
Any such action taken by the IETF LLC under this section of this
policy, is not subject to the rest of the policy in this document.
2.9. Relation to the IRTF
The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) [RFC2014] is a peer
organization separate from the IETF that is governed by its own set
or rules and processes. Sections 3, 6 and 7 of
[I-D.perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct] discuss rules for participating in
the IRTF and moderation of IRTF participation channels.
3. Changes to Existing RFCs
Creation of the IETF moderator team requires some changes to existing
RFCs and also requires the IESG to update a number of their
statements. This section describes these changes.
| TODO: Add once we know this I-D will go forward in some form.
4. Security Considerations
The usual security considerations [RFC3552] do not apply to this
document.
Potential abuse of the moderation process for the suppression of
undesired opinions is counteracted by the availability of an appeals
process, per Section 2.5.
The actions of the moderator team are intended to limit the
likelihood of disruptive behavior by a few IETF participants from
discouraging participation by other IETF participants.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
6. Acknowledgments
This document is based on two individual Internet-Drafts, draft-
ecahc-moderation (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ecahc-
moderation/) authored by Lars Eggert, Alissa Cooper, Jari Arkko, Russ
Housley and Brian E. Carpenter, and draft-lear-bcp83-replacement
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lear-bcp83-replacement/)
authored by Eliot Lear, Robert Wilton, Bron Gondwana and John R.
Levine. Many of the ideas in this document originated in those I-Ds.
Robert Sayre authored draft-sayre-modpod-excellent
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sayre-modpod-excellent/),
which also originated ideas reflected in this WG document.
These individuals suggested additional improvements to this document:
* Alissa Cooper
* Chris Box
* Eric Rescorla
* Jay Daley
* Joel Halpern
* Melinda Shore
* Michael Richardson
* Rich Salz
* Robert Sayre
* Brian Carpenter
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026>.
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3935>.
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
[RFC7154] Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7154>.
[RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7776>.
[RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8711>.
7.2. Informative References
[AHP] IESG, "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy", 3 November 2013,
<<https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-
harassment-policy/>>.
[DP] IESG, "IESG Statement on Disruptive Posting", 16 February
2006, <<https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/
disruptive-posting/>>.
[I-D.perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct]
Perkins, C., "IRTF Code of Conduct", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct-08, 2
February 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-perkins-irtf-code-of-conduct-08>.
[MODML] IESG, "IESG Guidance on the Moderation of IETF Working
Group Mailing Lists", 29 August 2000,
<<https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/
mailing-lists-moderation/>>.
[OT] "Ombudsteam",
<<https://www.ietf.org/contact/ombudsteam/>>.
[RFC2014] Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines
and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC2014,
October 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2014>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3552>.
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
[RFC3683] Rose, M., "A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF
Mailing Lists", BCP 83, RFC 3683, DOI 10.17487/RFC3683,
March 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3683>.
[RFC3934] Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the
Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3934, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934>.
[RFC9245] Eggert, L. and S. Harris, "IETF Discussion List Charter",
BCP 45, RFC 9245, DOI 10.17487/RFC9245, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9245>.
Appendix A. Changes
| RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication.
A.1. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-02
* Rewrite philosophy (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-
modpod-group-processes/pull/103)
* Reinstatement (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-
group-processes/pull/107)
* Content removal is not moderation. (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/109)
A.2. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-01
* Update "Relation to the IETF LLC". (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/92)
* Point to relevant IRTF material. (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/97)
* Add some text to explain the role of moderators.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/100)
A.3. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-00
* Spelling fix (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-
group-processes/pull/80)
* Initial attempt to balance what the moderator defines and what
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/75)
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
* Scope and relationship between WG chairs and moderators
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/76)
* Fix wording, spelling and capitalization.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/88)
* Editorial changes to acknowledgments.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/87)
A.4. Since draft-ecahc-moderation-01
* Content taken from draft-ecahc-moderation-01
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ecahc-moderation/01/).
Updated editors. Acknowledge authors of original pre-WG I-Ds.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/65)
Appendix B. Problems with the Previous Approach
The previous approach to moderation of disruptive participation
through chairs, list administrators, and moderator teams, combined
with the IESG-led process of PR-actions, has proven to be less than
ideal:
* The IETF community has not been able to agree on a common
definition of disruptive behavior. Therefore, chairs and list
administrators apply individually different criteria when making
decisions, and participants have different expectations for when
PR-actions are warranted.
* The moderation process that chairs and list administrators need to
follow [RFC3934] is slow and cumbersome, which makes it ill-suited
to situations that escalate quickly. It also assumes that the
originator of disruptive behavior is a misguided participant who
can be reasoned with and who will change their ways.
* Chairs and list administrators may only enact moderation actions
for their single list, which is ill-suited when a pattern of
disruptive behavior spans multiple lists. Also, chairs and list
administrators may not be fully aware of disruptive behavior that
spans multiple lists, due to not being subscribed to some of them.
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IETF Community Moderation March 2025
* PR-actions, which can address disruptive behavior across several
lists, are cumbersome and slow, and the community has not been
able to agree on a common definition of disruptive behavior. This
has led to a situation where PR-actions are rarely used, and when
they are used, they are perceived as very heavy-handed.
* For a given mailing list, participants may not feel comfortable
reporting disruptive behavior to a chair or list administrator,
for various reasons. For mailing lists not associated with
working groups, list administrators are not even publicly
identified - they can only be contacted through an anonymous alias
address. This exacerbates the problem, because participants may
not be comfortable reporting disruptive behavior to an anonymous
party.
* The IETF offers participation not only through in-person meetings
and mailing lists, which are the two channels of participation for
which moderation processes are currently defined. IETF business
also happens in chat channels, remote meeting participation
systems, virtual meetings, wikis, GitHub repositories, and more.
How disruptive behavior is moderated in these channels is
currently undefined.
Authors' Addresses
Lars Eggert (editor)
Mozilla
Stenbergintie 12 B
FI-02700 Kauniainen
Finland
Email: lars@eggert.org
URI: <https://eggert.org/>
Eliot Lear (editor)
Cisco Systems
Richtistrasse 7
CH-8304 Wallisellen
Switzerland
Phone: +41 44 878 9200
Email: lear@lear.ch
Eggert & Lear Expires 4 September 2025 [Page 15]