Experiment in Long-Term Suspensions From Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Mailing Lists
RFC 4633
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from hartmans-ietf@mit.edu to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Cullen Jennings |
|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Brian Carpenter |
|
2012-08-22
|
03 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Mark Townsley |
|
2006-11-08
|
03 | (System) | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Paul Hoffman. |
|
2006-08-30
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-08-30
|
03 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4633' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-08-23
|
03 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2006-05-31
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-05-30
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2006-05-30
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2006-05-30
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2006-05-30
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-05-26
|
03 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-05-25 |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mark Townsley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Mark Townsley |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot comment] I apologize for having to abstain. I can't get over some of the language about IESG delegating power and deciding processes etc, even … [Ballot comment] I apologize for having to abstain. I can't get over some of the language about IESG delegating power and deciding processes etc, even though I realize this is all experiments. I worry that this will antagonize the community. I know I should have been more active talking about this on mailing lists to try to explain my concerns before this point. |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ross Callon by Ross Callon |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot discuss] Comment: First, thank you for providing a well-written and concise overview of the published landscape on this topic. The document is valuable on … [Ballot discuss] Comment: First, thank you for providing a well-written and concise overview of the published landscape on this topic. The document is valuable on this alone. It does underscore David's concern that there are too many procedures here (to the point that they are stepping on one another), and that an additional set wouldn't serve anyone. I echo his hope that this experiment may result in a more concise set of rules in the future, one that is fully self-describing in a single document which could be used to deprecate the existing array of documents and "Statements" on the topic. I hope these hopes are not too high. Discuss: Regarding the title: > Experimental Procedure for Long Term Suspensions from Mailing Lists This title implies that this document contains an actual procedure for long-term suspension. This is not really the case. My read of the document is that it describes an 18-month experiment in which actual procedures may be derived and eventually ratified. Also, I think the title should qualify that this is for IETF mailing lists, lest someone think the IETF is going to provide some help in managing their own lists. So, I would suggest renaming the document to something like: Experiment in Long Term Suspensions From IETF Mailing Lists > RFC 2418 [RFC2418] permitted individuals to be blocked from posting > to a mailing list: "As a last resort and after explicit warnings, the > Area Director, with the approval of the IESG, may request that the > mailing list maintainer block the ability of the offending individual > to post to the mailing list." RFC 2418 also allowed other forms of > mailing list control to be applied with the approval of the area > director and IESG. However RFC 2418 only applies to working group > mailing lists. Is RFC 2418 deprecated? If not, I think this paragraph should be written in the present tense throughout (as in the final sentence). > [IESGDISRUPT] > "IESG Statement on Disruptive Posting", February 2006. Could we have a pointer to somehow retrieve this statement? |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot discuss] First, thank you for providing a well-written and concise overview of the published landscape on this topic. The document is valuable on this … [Ballot discuss] First, thank you for providing a well-written and concise overview of the published landscape on this topic. The document is valuable on this alone. I have a few items which I thinkg would improve the document. Regarding the title: > Experimental Procedure for Long Term Suspensions from Mailing Lists This title implies that this document contains an actual procedure for long-term suspension. This is not really the case. My read of the document is that it describes an 18-month experiment in which actual procedures may be derived and eventually ratified. Also, I think the title should qualify that this is for IETF mailing lists, lest someone think the IETF is going to provide some help in managing their own lists. So, I would suggest renaming the document to something like: Experiment in Long Term Suspensions From IETF Mailing Lists > RFC 2418 [RFC2418] permitted individuals to be blocked from posting > to a mailing list: "As a last resort and after explicit warnings, the > Area Director, with the approval of the IESG, may request that the > mailing list maintainer block the ability of the offending individual > to post to the mailing list." RFC 2418 also allowed other forms of > mailing list control to be applied with the approval of the area > director and IESG. However RFC 2418 only applies to working group > mailing lists. Is RFC 2418 deprecated? If not, I think this paragraph should be written in the present tense throughout (as in the final sentence). > [IESGDISRUPT] > "IESG Statement on Disruptive Posting", February 2006. Could we have a pointer to somehow retrieve this statement? |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | David Kessens | [Ballot comment] I have one very serious concern about this document that I don't believe can be solved by changing the document itself. Suspending posting … [Ballot comment] I have one very serious concern about this document that I don't believe can be solved by changing the document itself. Suspending posting rights on a mailing list is serious business as it is a decision that implies that the right of an individual are less important than the interest of the larger group. I have no problem with this premiss as long as we have taken adequate measures to ensure that no arbritray actions can take place. I am concerned however that we are going to take actions like this based on a experiment as I am not sure whether an experiment is a tool that allows us to make such far reaching decisions. I am not convinced that we need this experiment either but I don't believe that that in itself is enough reason to block this document. I am really concerned that we are busy creating a web of regulations and process while in my humble opinion the tools that we already have are both sufficient and adequate, albeit somewhat crude. I would prefer that we in the future replace current rules by new rules as opposed to establishing *additional* rules. I understand that this is an experiment and that this experiment could actually lead to that goal so I am not going to stand in the way of holding up this experiment for this reason. |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Kessens has been changed to Abstain from No Objection by David Kessens |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu by Dan Romascanu |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] I'd like Brian's suggested text to be added to the draft. Nits: - Line 76 has weird spacing: '...rovides a pro...' … [Ballot comment] I'd like Brian's suggested text to be added to the draft. Nits: - Line 76 has weird spacing: '...rovides a pro...' - Line 90 has weird spacing: '...changes have...' - Line 105 has weird spacing: '...spended from ...' - Line 106 has weird spacing: '...permits a lo...' - Line 115 has weird spacing: '... create sanct...' - (3 more instances...) |
|
2006-05-25
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko by Jari Arkko |
|
2006-05-24
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Cullen Jennings |
|
2006-05-24
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot discuss] I think that my concerns are much more eloquently put by Margaret Wasserman in her post at: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg41757.html In summary: There is no … [Ballot discuss] I think that my concerns are much more eloquently put by Margaret Wasserman in her post at: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg41757.html In summary: There is no experiment here. It's not clear what the IESG will do, how they will evaluate the results, and what they might do given different results. As it is, it basically looks like an 18 month deprecation of some RFCs however it is not phrased that way. If this was not an experiment but just saying we are going to depreciate RFC X,Y,Z and allow IESG to manage mailing lists however it sees fit, I would have no problem with that. I guess it's not that I object to the outcome but don't like this way of getting there. I entered this a a discuss purely because I want to discuss the issue. I fully expect to change my position one way or another after the discussion and perhaps we will see ways to change the draft but it seems unlikely this will discussion will result in changes to the draft. |
|
2006-05-24
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot discuss] I think that my concerns are much more eloquently put by Margaret Wasserman in her post at: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg41757.html In summary: There is no … [Ballot discuss] I think that my concerns are much more eloquently put by Margaret Wasserman in her post at: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg41757.html In summary: There is no experiment here. It's not clear what the IESG will do, how they will evaluate the results, and what they might do given different results. As it is, it basically looks like an 18 month deprecation of some RFCs however it is not phrased that way. If this was not an experiment but just saying we are going to depreciate RFC X,Y,Z and allow IESG to manage mailing lists however it sees fit, I would have no problem with that. I guess it's not that I object to the outcome but don't like this way of getting there. I entered this a a discuss purely because I want to discuss the issue. I fully expect to change my position one way or another after the discussion and perhaps we will see ways to change the draft but it seems unlikely this will discussion will result in changes to the draft. |
|
2006-05-24
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Cullen Jennings |
|
2006-05-24
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot comment] The IESG will still need to figure out what it is going to do - once we know, we could equally well ask … [Ballot comment] The IESG will still need to figure out what it is going to do - once we know, we could equally well ask the community for approval instead of asking for arbitrary approval beforehand. I would probably be fine with anything that got proposed but I am uncomfortable with asking the community to just deprecate documents that put restrictions on what the IESG can do and allow the IESG to just go an arbitrarily do whatever it wants with no prior description of what it might want to do. |
|
2006-05-24
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings by Cullen Jennings |
|
2006-05-24
|
03 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2006-05-23
|
03 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Yes by Lars Eggert |
|
2006-05-23
|
03 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert by Lars Eggert |
|
2006-05-17
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-03.txt |
|
2006-05-17
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-05-17
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] The -03 draft was updated in response to review comments and Last Call comments. One open question is whether the draft gives the … [Ballot comment] The -03 draft was updated in response to review comments and Last Call comments. One open question is whether the draft gives the IESG unintended discretion. Consider the sentence: IN particular this experiment allows the IESG to create a level of sanction between RFC 3934 and RFC 3683 for working group lists and create sanctions other than RFC 3683 for non-working-group lists. Should we add this? However, it does not allow the IESG to create any sanction which exceeds those allowed by RFC 3683. If the IESG approves the draft but would like this included, please put it in "Point Raised - writeup needed" |
|
2006-05-17
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-05-25 by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-05-17
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | [Note]: 'Last call ended March 15' added by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-05-08
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2006-05-08
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-02.txt |
|
2006-03-16
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-03-16
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
|
2006-03-16
|
03 | David Kessens | [Ballot comment] I am a NoOb but support Brian in delaying the approval of this document until after this IETF. Also, formally this document should … [Ballot comment] I am a NoOb but support Brian in delaying the approval of this document until after this IETF. Also, formally this document should not be on the agenda any longer considering the fact that we actually did receive significant Last Call comments and we normally only discuss a document if we didn't receive such comments if we run the Last Call in parallel to putting a document on the agenda. I also have some other comments: I am really concerned that we are busy created a web of regulations and process while in my humble opinion the tools that we already have are both sufficient and adequate, albeit somewhat crude. I would prefer that we in the future replace current rules by new rules as opposed to establishing *additional* rules. I understand that this is an experiment and that this experiment could actually lead to that goal so I am not going to stand in the way of holding this experiment. I have one more concern that I don't know the answer on myself and might warrant some discussion: suspending posting rights on a mailing list is serious business as it is a decision that implies that the right of an individual are less important than the interest of the larger group. I have no problem with this premiss. I am somewhat concerned however that we are going to take actions like this based on a experiment as I am not sure whether an experiment is a tool that allows us to make such far reaching decisions. |
|
2006-03-16
|
03 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
|
2006-03-15
|
03 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2006-03-15
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot comment] I support the IETF Last Call comments made by Ted. I feel sorry and worried that we need to do these sort of … [Ballot comment] I support the IETF Last Call comments made by Ted. I feel sorry and worried that we need to do these sort of administrative experiments, but can support it. |
|
2006-03-15
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
|
2006-03-15
|
03 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Last Call Comments: No IANA Considerations section. We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
|
2006-03-14
|
03 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot comment] I have sent in some last call comments on this; I felt it better that they be made publicly. I am no-ob on … [Ballot comment] I have sent in some last call comments on this; I felt it better that they be made publicly. I am no-ob on this ballot, but I hope that Sam and Brian consider my last call comments. |
|
2006-03-14
|
03 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
|
2006-03-12
|
03 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
|
2006-03-09
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot discuss] During last call, it was suggested that the last call was premature. I'd like IESG review now, but wish to delay approval until … [Ballot discuss] During last call, it was suggested that the last call was premature. I'd like IESG review now, but wish to delay approval until after discussion in the GenArea open meeting at IETF 65. A Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01-davies.txt identified a meta-issue: this proposal creates "merely the provision to allow the IESG to decide to do something" rather than defining a specific experiment. It seems that in this area, giving the IESG authority to test specific solutions (i.e. a meta-experiment) is appropriate but some text clarifications are needed, probably as an RFC Editor note. This review also raised some points of detail that need response. |
|
2006-03-09
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-03-09
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-03-09
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Ballot has been issued by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-03-09
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2006-03-09
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-03-16 by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-03-09
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Last call summary (as of March 9) 1. One all-positive response was received. 2. It was suggested that the 18 month clock on this experiment … Last call summary (as of March 9) 1. One all-positive response was received. 2. It was suggested that the 18 month clock on this experiment should start only after the first suspension has been requested. However, this would complicate implementation. No change proposed. 3. It was suggested that the last call was premature. However, this is an active problem that is currently consuming valuable time. In any case the IESG decision will be delayed until after discussion in the GenArea open meeting at IETF 65. 4. A Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01-davies.txt identified a meta-issue: this proposal creates "merely the provision to allow the IESG to decide to do something" rather than defining a specific experiment. It seems that in this area, giving the IESG authority to test specific solutions (i.e. a meta-experiment) is appropriate but some text clarifications are needed as an RFC Editor note. 5. This review also raised some points of detail that need response. |
|
2006-03-09
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | [Note]: 'Last call ends March 15' added by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-02-13
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2006-02-13
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-02-13
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-02-13
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Last Call was requested by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-02-13
|
03 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2006-02-13
|
03 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2006-02-13
|
03 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2006-02-08
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-02-08
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Intended Status has been changed to Experimental from None |
|
2006-02-08
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Draft Added by Brian Carpenter in state Publication Requested |
|
2006-02-06
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt |
|
2006-01-24
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-00.txt |