Hi Frank,
[Posting as an individual and the author of RFC 3934. My views do not necessarily represent the views of any group, particularly the IESG or my employer.]
At 3:33 PM +0200 10/6/05, Frank Ellermann wrote:
And so far I think that 3934 is better than 3683, and a hypothetical 3934bis should start with "obsoletes 3683".
RFC 3683 is quite different from RFC 3934. RFC 3683 allows the IESG to suspend an individual's posting rights to all IETF lists (WG and non-WG lists) for an indefinite period of time in a single action, with no requirement for periodic review. RFC 3934 allows WG chairs to suspend an individual's posting rights on a single WG mailing list (the one on which the abuse actually occurred) for no more than 30 days.
I do have some serious concerns regarding RFC 3683, especially as it is currently being discussed...
Personally, I think that the mechanism described in RFC 3683 is an awfully large hammer. I don't feel comfortable with the fact that we have crafted this hammer, nor with the fact that we might actually use it. Use of this mechanism against an individual could be detrimental to that individual's reputation and/or to his or her career. I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea that we might consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent, frequent and/or hard-to-understand posts to be an abuse of the IETF consensus process, as I am quite certain that I have fallen into many of those categories from time-to-time. I am also personally appalled by the fact that anyone would publicly agitate for use of this mechanism on the IETF discussion list.
IMO, a 30-day suspension is adequate for most purposes, and RFC 3934 provides that there may be subsequent 30-day suspensions if there are further instances of abuse.
I do think that an update to RFC 3934 may be called for. In particular, I would like to update RFC 3934 to indicate that the mechanism can be used by the owners of non-WG IETF lists, and to define "the IESG" to be the owner of the IETF discussion list. I'd also like to make it clearer that repeat offenses can result in expedited action (i.e. no need for an addition round of private/public warnings if a repeat offense occurs within 90 days of reinstatement?).
I would also like to see the mechanism described in RFC 3683 formally deprecated, probably by moving RFC 3683 to "Historic". However, it seems clear that some people do support the existence and use of this mechanism, so I don't know that we could reach IETF consensus to do that.
Margaret _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf