We're paid to be skeptical
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:00:54Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "(sigh) am I the only one getting intermittent audio?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:02:16Z"}, {"author": "Joel Halpern", "text": "Audio is coming through fine to me.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:02:34Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Can someone paste the URL? I'm having trouble with the onsite tool link in the agenda.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:03:27Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "Many thanks to both Jon and Lisa for agreeing to chair this
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:03:31Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/onsite121/?session=33580
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:03:59Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": ":plus:
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:04:38Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Thx @Robert Sparks
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:04:48Z"}, {"author": "Lorenzo Miniero", "text": "Pete: there was an issue we just fixed, so if you try again it should work
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:04:58Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "(sigh) this is useless...
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:05:52Z"}, {"author": "Lisa Dusseault", "text": "This is my first meeting attending remotely; if I'm in the meetecho does that mean my participation is registered? no extra step to do?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:06:01Z"}, {"author": "Brian Haberman", "text": "@Lisa correct
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:06:14Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "yes, logging into meetecho is all that is needed
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:06:21Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "I keep meaning to post a bibliography to the list:
\n- IESG Guidance on the Moderation of IETF Working Group Mailing Lists
\n- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418. Particularly relevant sections:
\n - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418#section-3.2 from the "NOTE:" forward. This is about the chair's duties to dealing with disruptive individuals. The final paragraph was replaced by https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934\n\n\n - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418#section-3.3 from the paragraph beginning "To facilitate making forward progress" to the end of the section. These are criteria the chair can use to reject input from WG members.\n\n\n - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418#section-6.1, particularly the section on "Moderate the WG email list".\n\n\n - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418#section-6.4. This describes the role of a WG Facilitator, which we haven't used in at least some long period of time.\n- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3683. BCP 83 PR-Actions.
\n- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934. Mailing list management.
\n- IESG Statement on Disruptive Posting
\n- Advice for WG Chairs Dealing with Off-Topic Postings
\n- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9245. IETF Discussion List Charter, which describes the \"Moderator\" function for that list.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:06:26Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Well, that didn't paste well. I'll send to the list.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:07:08Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "man thats a small font for me. I dont think they make seeing eye dogs with good enough vision to read it for me
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:11:22Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "agreed. Workaround: grab it from the datatracker and look at it on a closer screen.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:11:54Z"}, {"author": "Francesca Palombini", "text": "", "time": "2024-11-04T13:11:57Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "ok, I can't get a steady audio stream from either meetecho or the read-only audio stream. I'm only getting a few seconds at a time with large gaps of silence. this is extremely frustrating given that I think this group is likely to do a large amount of harm.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:12:03Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "anyone else remote having the same problem as Keith?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:12:56Z"}, {"author": "Lorenzo Miniero", "text": "Keith: by read-only do you mean the MP3 audio stream?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:13:06Z"}, {"author": "Lisa Dusseault", "text": "My audio is fine. Richard is taking excellent notes, so the hedgedoc is a good thing to follow if audio drops out for you.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:13:32Z"}, {"author": "Robert Sparks", "text": "Lisa - is the audio stream complete for you?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:13:35Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Lorenzo: yes
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:13:40Z"}, {"author": "Lorenzo Miniero", "text": "Keith: the mp3 stream goes through an entirely different backend, and on HTTP (and not WebRTC as it is here), so it sounds like it may be a potential connectivity issue on your end?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:15:31Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "ok I'm just responding to the typed notes, since I'm not consistently getting anything else.
\nBut this is a VERY dangerous group, with high potential for any mechanisms created to be misused or even abused. It's also dangerous to the consensus making process if moderation is used to suppress divergent views. We should not assume that moderation is inherently good, unbiased, or correct.
lorenzo: it's of course entirely possible that the issue is with connections on my end, but unless I can somehow get my cell phone to serve that purpose, it's the only connection I have.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:17:37Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "I tried to post this to the list but the post was \"moderated\" for reasons having nothing to do with its content: IMO neither of the drafts associated with this group should be used as starting points for WG output.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:18:41Z"}, {"author": "Lisa Dusseault", "text": "Because moderation is not inherently good, unbiased or correct, making sure that any new moderation process has appropriate accountability is definitely in scope.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:19:39Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "I concur that there's a risk of harm, but I think there's also a definite risk of harm by not doing this work.
\nWe have to start somewhere.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:20:16Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "This effort is needed.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:20:31Z"}, {"author": "Sean Turner", "text": "@Keith I can take that to the mic.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:21:24Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Murray: I don't think it's at all been established that moderation is likely to improve the situation in IETF, and there are many ways in which it can do harm.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:21:33Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Sean: I won't be able to hear any responses.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:21:50Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "+1 to pete
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:21:57Z"}, {"author": "Sean Turner", "text": "Ah
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:22:15Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Lisa: agree about accountability. that would include transparency, and some ways to reduce bias on moderators' part.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:22:34Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "@Keith: Have any alternatives been proposed? Are there any?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:23:19Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "+1 Pete
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:23:41Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "pool of mods which chairs can call on?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:23:52Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "\"chair calls that xyz not be heard for the statutory interval\"
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:24:11Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@George Michaelson the proper collective noun for moderators is \"pod\". Thus MODPOD
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:24:16Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "neologisms
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:24:30Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "WG chairs need to be involved, the need some help, a question for me is who makes decisions to escalate
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:24:34Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "(in the less bad scenarious)
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:24:41Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Stephen Farrell what do you mean by \"escalate\" here?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:25:12Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Murray: when, or under what conditions, does moderation actually do good? The best answer that I have is that it does the most good when it's the least needed, when participants are already reasonably civil and try to communicate effectively.
\nOf course the devil is in the details, and I will agree that some small amount of moderation _can_ be helpful. But the trick, IMO, is to keep it from getting out of hand, and IMO that has more to do with setting positive examples than with \"negative\" mechanisms.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:25:16Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "defining the last resort before the lower bar steps have been worked out seems .. I dunno. scary. But that said, there has to be a backstop
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:25:17Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "@rlb: someone needs to figure when the next level of whatever process is warranted
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:25:47Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "as a side observation I'm pleased how many of the participants have a blue dot chair role because it means chairs @large are in the room, thinking about the impact on their work and ML
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:26:07Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "@Keith: I have a hard time understanding how we could conclude that the status quo is the best thing for the IETF.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:27:15Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "IMO moderation needs to be done by active participants in the discussion being moderated, because context is important. But I'm at least somewhat wary of having WG chairs \"in the loop\".
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:27:59Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "Regarding whether these drafts are suitable as a starting point: Maybe we can just say that the text in these docs is available for the WG to borrow and adapt for a new WG doc to address the issues?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:28:15Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Murray: we've certainly seen examples of the status quo being worse, e.g. when PR actions turn into witch hunts.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:28:25Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Lars Eggert I kind of assumed that was the case anyway, due to hte need for consolidation
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:28:36Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "Keith Moore said:
\n\n\nIMO moderation needs to be done by active participants in the discussion being moderated, because context is important. But I'm at least somewhat wary of having WG chairs \"in the loop\".
\n
We have repeatedly seen active participants trying to moderate in WGs lead to explosions that derail work, so I am certainly not in favor of that being the preferred mode.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:29:20Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "@Richard, your assumption is correct, I'm just trying to make it explicit in the hopes it will clarify thingns
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:29:21Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "to whoever is taking notes: note that the \"Sean\" quote was probably Sean repeating on the mic what I said here.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:29:24Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "@Keith: I'm an advocate for reviewing existing procedures. I'm not convinced that more fully developed moderation is guaranteed, or even likely, to be harmful. I do agree we have to be careful about it.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:29:34Z"}, {"author": "Sean Turner", "text": "Yep
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:29:43Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Keith Moore - Thanks, will fix
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:29:50Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "Sean did say that at the mic.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:29:52Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "Folks should also feel free to just fix stuff in the HedgeDoc :)
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:30:16Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Murray: well, we won't know if the changed procedures do harm until it's too late. But all I can do at this point is point out the potential for harm and identify some of the pitfalls.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:30:36Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "keith all social change risks \"too late\" but also doing nothing risks \"too late\" this is not a structurally sound argument which falls to \"do nothing\"
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:31:09Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "we can decide to modify our ruleset, amongst ourselves and decide to modify it again
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:31:25Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "this is not a one-time one-way street.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:31:32Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Harald: I haven't at all been a fan of the IETF list moderators making up their own rules on the fly. IMO rules should require consensus processes.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:31:48Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "It doesn't have to be the chair themself in current procedures: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418#section-6.4
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:32:12Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "George: WGs tend to have limited lifetimes, and after a certain point everyone is too burned out to think hard about new changes. so in practice, there is some notion of \"too late\" even if there's nothing inherently preventing a new WG from spinning up or whatever. So basically \"be careful\" and try to \"do no harm\".
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:33:09Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "+1 George
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:34:23Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "Dan Gilmore did something interesting in deleg this morning, asking the chairs to get some sense of emerging views in the room understood to be absolutely NOT a consensus call.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:37:40Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Campling", "text": "Since I mentioned RIPE on the list, here\u2019s a link to the relevant section of its site - https://www.ripe.net/community/ripe-governance/code-of-conduct/
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:37:45Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "somebody else asked if it could not be a single binary choice but a more nuanced set (pair?) of questions. I am not sure there is a clear question to be put here TBH but the idea was interesting.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:38:22Z"}, {"author": "Brian Haberman", "text": "@George Yes, DKG's suggestion in DELEG was a good one
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:38:25Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "(sorry, I just started to receive audio via my cell phone). Is this Lars speaking about principles?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:38:28Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "Colin Perkins
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:38:37Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "Colin Perkins
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:38:38Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Murray: ok thanks
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:38:51Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "This \"robust\" euphemism is not a particularly good one. It lumps rigorous debate about ideas along with aggressively adversarial stuff. There's a way to have robust discussion without it becoming directly hostile.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:38:51Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "how about \"unnecessarily combative\"
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:39:28Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "I'm emphatically opposed to a global \"moderation team\" because they will have far too much power. ESPECIALLY if they operate at direction of IETF management.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:39:29Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Yeah, \"combative\" is a mode that we don't need.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:39:48Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "A contest of ideas doesn't need to turn sour.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:40:17Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "cloture is a very american concept. well, for most people. has wider applicability but rarely used outside a US political context
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:40:43Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Mike: yes, I absolutely concur that the moderation being a \"control point\" is a huge risk of this.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:40:50Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "not that it means its inapplicable
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:40:57Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "I could handle a chair calling for cloture from the list and accepting rough consensus from the list but that would mean defining process bounds and some norms across WG. and probably has to apply in charter or not
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:41:40Z"}, {"author": "Jonathan Hoyland", "text": "@George thanks for spelling that out, because I'd not heard the term before.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:41:43Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "The problem I have with \"flexibility\" is that it gives the moderators \"flexibility\" to be arbitrary, and to selectively marginalize people for dubious reasons.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:43:12Z"}, {"author": "Mirja K\u00fchlewind", "text": "I do have two questions:
\n1) Are these proposals aiming to replace/obsolete BCP83 or amend it?
\n2) How can we merge the drafts if we don't decide on this one core different point of who does the moderation?
Most of our appeal procedures are fairly flexible and autonomous. Has that not served us well so far?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:43:46Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Murray: appeals are useless if the people to whom the appeals are being made are heavily tied into the people taking the primary actions. So for example BCP83 appeals are probably pointless.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:44:30Z"}, {"author": "Jonathan Hoyland", "text": "I agree with Keith on that point. If you're not going to specify the behaviours, and also not publish moderation decisions there is scope for abuse.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:44:44Z"}, {"author": "Roman Danyliw", "text": "IETF plenary list moderator stats = https://github.com/ietf/Moderators/blob/main/stats.md
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:44:53Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "+1 to @Stephen Farrell
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:45:21Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "so the idea of appeals is .. appealing. what is being objected to is who is the appeal made to. Is there an alternative? because it would be nice to have an appeals process we all could live by
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:45:25Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "who == collective set not individual
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:45:39Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "I concur that there's a serious problem with the idea of \"moderation team\". Unless, maybe, their primary role is for appeals of decisions initially made by others.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:45:42Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "by \"serious problem\" I should have said \"serious scaling problem\". (there are other potential problems, also)
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:46:26Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "In past roles I have been required due to legal action to scrub lists and archives, and its painful and I pointed out did nothing for cached state in the reader/writers personal machine
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:46:38Z"}, {"author": "Mirja K\u00fchlewind", "text": "I don't think it is possible to design a system that has zero risk for abuse but that's shouldn't be used as an excuse to not to anything.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:46:57Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "(where scrub means remove content previously posted)
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:47:06Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "+1 MIrja
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:47:13Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "Honestly, we've been tolerating the lack of moderation for so long, it seems worth trying something even if there's risk of abuse. Solve the abuse problems if they arise.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:47:22Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Campling", "text": "+1 Mirja
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:47:44Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "George: I agree that there's a need for an appeals process. The trick is to make it fair.
\nRichard: the abuse problems have already arisen on several occasions.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:47:55Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "In other words, abuse problems are totally imaginary at this point
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:47:55Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "Also +1 Mirja
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:48:09Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Richard: emphatically disagree.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:48:18Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "maybe \"hypothetical\" vs. \"imaginary\"
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:48:21Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Richard: Still emphatically disagree. Moderation absolutely has been used in the past in IETF to suppress divergent voices, at behest of management.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:48:56Z"}, {"author": "Carolina Caeiro", "text": "A moderation team of 5 sounds to me like it should be enough. Also, the question is, do all people in the moderation have to weigh in? If so, a larger group may be hard to get together.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:48:57Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Keith, can you maybe write up what sort of action you think is appropriate? A draft seems like it might be necessary to get the breadth of your concerns articulated clearly. This chat isn't a great medium for this.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:49:44Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Carolina: what scope do you envision for the \"moderation team\"? I don't see how any small group of people can cover so many lists, either in terms of traffic volume OR in terms of knowing the context of each discussion. And giving 5 people so much power seems incredibly dangerous.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:50:00Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Martin: by \"action\" what do you mean?
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:50:32Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "+1 @Martin Thomson examples would help too
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:50:38Z"}, {"author": "Chris Box", "text": "3 moderators is sufficient for the IETF list if (and only if) all 3 people are available every day. They can each cover their respective third of the planet. But since we do other things as well, some redundancy is better.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:50:46Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "You seem concerned that moderation would overstep bounds. I would like to understand what you think that bounds on that should be.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:51:07Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "opposite of what Jon's saying is also true: some people are problematic on plenary lists/discussions but non-problematic in specific wgs/discussions
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:52:10Z"}, {"author": "Carolina Caeiro", "text": "Keith, I understand your concerns, but I do support the existence of a moderation team. They can get acquainted with the context before making decisions. And also support M's earlier comment, nothing we come up with will be entirely risk free, but I still think this group is here bc the community has agreed that we need to do something differently
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:52:24Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "@Carolina, I think 5 might be enough if it is clearly incumbent on those appointing them to make that group diverse -- not just demographically but in terms of opinions about when intervention/ action is appropriate.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:52:47Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "+1 Martin; I think talking at length about what won't work doesn't get us closer to a solution people are seeking.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:53:14Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Carolina: ok, I just don't see how a small team can possibly do a good job across all of IETF. But perhaps you're envisioning a narrow role for that team, which is why I was asking about scope.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:53:16Z"}, {"author": "Carolina Caeiro", "text": "I do agree that there are tons of details to work out -- for example, how that moderation team gets selected, how we ensure it is diverse, that it has people that are trusted by the community etc, as well as the rules of how they will operate -- but I am also confident we can work out the deets
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:53:45Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Carolina: agree with all of those except that I don't share your confidence. I'm extremely wary of this, probably because I've seen other moderation in IETF be abused.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:54:33Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Keith Moore - As you're writing up a draft, examples of moderation abuse would be useful
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:55:17Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "was that \"coaccidentally?\" nice
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:55:44Z"}, {"author": "Carolina Caeiro", "text": "I supported the drafting of the LACNIC code of conduct back in the day, I think it may be useful to look at what RIRs and ICANN are doing for moderation. We learned a lot from comparing and contrasting notes across technical community
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:55:45Z"}, {"author": "Carolina Caeiro", "text": "+1 M
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:55:54Z"}, {"author": "Carolina Caeiro", "text": "not just RIPE!!!!
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:56:26Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Campling", "text": "+1 to looking at RIRs and ICANN
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:56:44Z"}, {"author": "Carolina Caeiro", "text": "there are other regions too :)
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:56:50Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "Internet Moderation Summit
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:56:54Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Richard: noted. But I don't think re-litigating past actions OR attacking the individuals making those decisions is likely to be useful.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:57:22Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Keith Moore - Not asking for re-litigation, more lessons learned
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:57:43Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Richard: ok, I'll think about that.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:57:57Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "@Richard: My guess is that any catalog of past abuses, especially on that named names, would be our next candidate for claims for need of moderation and/or censorship.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:57:57Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "John: as in, silence the messenger? Yeah, I'd have that concern also.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:58:36Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "I think we can be adult enough to say \"Not everyone agrees that this was an abuse, but it's an example of what some people feel to be abuse of the process\"
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:58:41Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "I'd look to history more in terms of helping define where the boundaries could or should be, informed by experience.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:58:47Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "Yep.
", "time": "2024-11-04T13:59:56Z"}, {"author": "Carolina Caeiro", "text": "I agree Pete the spaces and division of labour is not exactly the same, but there are still lessons on, for example, how to select community members that have moderation responsibilities, how to structure processes, etc. To me there are def lessons to be learned from looking at how others are tackling similar challenges
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:00:33Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "@Keith, yes. @Richard, if we could all be \"adult enough\", all of the time, we would not be having this discussion. I'm not nearly as afraid of this as Keith appears to be, but I have seen the sorts of abuses he talks about and I' do see serious risks.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:00:36Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Eliot: disagree that the IETF executive director is at all neutral or appropriate for a moderator role. IMO the people making these decisions should be active participants in the process with experience of the rough-and-tumble of consensus building.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:01:31Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "Like the IESG?
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:02:37Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "I've seen people raise the spectre of moderation or code of conduct abuse as a means of suppressing a differing viewpoint. It's a real tactic that people at least perceive to have been employed. That is not always how those who are affected by bad behaviour feel though. It's always helpful to avoid ascribing motives to others; that's often where the worst outcomes go.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:03:01Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Campling", "text": "I\u2019m also cautious about asking the IETF to handle this particular poisoned chalice. I think this is something that the community needs to own.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:03:03Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "+1 Martin
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:03:29Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "I don't like the idea of the LLC owning this; I think the LLC needs to keep its hands off of IETF deliberations.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:03:35Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Campling", "text": "*IETF Director
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:03:37Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Is there a hybrid model? Volunteers with paid support from the LLC.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:03:47Z"}, {"author": "Carolina Caeiro", "text": "I do not think this is something to be delegated to the LLC
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:04:15Z"}, {"author": "Bron Gondwana", "text": "We could just have an AI moderate the lists; what could possibly go wrong
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:04:22Z"}, {"author": "Jay Daley", "text": "\u201crough and tumble\u201d illustrates a big part of the problem as that has clearly been used to excuse rude and hostile behaviour
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:04:52Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "I don't think we \"know how to do\" email moderation either, but I agree with not boiling the ocean.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:04:58Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "Having been involved in GitHub stuff, that has happened. Most of it is clearly spam though.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:06:27Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "Early codepoint allocation for moderation process?
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:06:54Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "BCP93 says how to do process experiments
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:07:22Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "not sure it works well but...
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:07:29Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "I wonder how this discussion of channel-specific stuff squares against the discussion of general principles earlier
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:07:50Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "in a domain like a professional body and possible violations of code(s) there are two models I've seen. $legal is brought to bear and you go to professional mediators and/or judges/recorders/silks who do full legal process and its bound in contract law or, you have a special subcommittee of the body, and they are apppinted and have terms and are answerable to the community through the board.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:07:59Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "I do think that a \"moderation experiment\" could be run on a few working groups, but agree that the experiment would need to be well documented in advance.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:08:08Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "doing this informally is brave frankly. at some point we're inviting lawfare
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:08:33Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "@Martin: one of my concerns is that I am suspicious of anyone who, as a matter of personality or to grind a particular axe, really, really wants to be a decisio-maker in the moderation process. This is an instance of an old social problme: one wants people on a police force who are driven by concerns about the community but not those who like the job as a way to exert power over their neighbors.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:08:54Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "+1 Jay.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:08:54Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "@john thats not an argument to disband/defund the police ab initio, but it certainly underpins why people call for those things.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:09:33Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "hah @David
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:10:20Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "I'm extremely skeptical of the value of having 'professionals' involved in the moderation process, partly because consensus-based decision-making is so rare, and 'professionals' that understand it will be difficult to find.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:10:40Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "Our 5-year mission ... to boldly go where no mailing list has gone before
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:10:47Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "Doesn't take us that long.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:11:01Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "I really agree with Bron, let's ship a new process in an RFC, get some mileage on it, and then see if we want to -bis it
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:11:45Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "The reason to phrase it as an experiment might be less of being sure that it's working, but more that it is not doing harm. We'll likely know the latter far sooner than the former.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:11:47Z"}, {"author": "Bron Gondwana", "text": "I think 2 years wouldn't be enough
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:11:47Z"}, {"author": "Bron Gondwana", "text": "but we can ALWAYS bis earlier
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:12:06Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "At least if it is called an experiment it is easier to stop.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:12:07Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "@keith I emphatically disagree. we are not sufficiently different to IEEE, Medical bodies, you-name-it that there are not mediators and others capable of understanding us. I just don't see your case here. we're not that special
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:12:07Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "+1 @George Michaelson we are not special unique flowers
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:12:32Z"}, {"author": "Bron Gondwana", "text": "if it's showing harm; but 5 years \"unless re-upped, it goes away\" takes away the risk of status-quo bias being stuck to the new design
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:12:48Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "I would object to the working group NOT adopting these.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:13:27Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "YES I object to the use of these documents as inputs to the WG.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:13:31Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "(wow that message actually went through!)
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:14:05Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "that wasnt a consensus call. that was informal caucus
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:15:28Z"}, {"author": "Richard Barnes", "text": "@Keith Moore curious if you think there's a better doc for a starting point
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:15:44Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "oh ok, I misspoke it IS a consensus call in the room (so to speak) ?
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:16:35Z"}, {"author": "George Michaelson", "text": "does this go to the ML?
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:16:41Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "all hums/polls goto the list for confirmation
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:17:07Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "This was a sense of the room not a consensus call
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:17:26Z"}, {"author": "Pete Resnick", "text": "This is why I said \"No opinion\". I think we end up with a new unified document anyway and we have to go through issue by issue, so it seems like a distinction without a difference. But whatever...
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:18:47Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "(had to disconnect and reconnect, so I'm missing some of the input and trying to catch up)
\nGeorge: emphatically disagree. consensus-making does require different kinds of conversation.
\nRichard: no I haven't seen a better starrting point, but this is a new WG after all.
Please, it's too soon to try to merge these documents.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:20:33Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "+1 Pete (another \"no opinion\" voter
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:20:37Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "(can't raise a hand) no, don't consolidate at all.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:21:34Z"}, {"author": "Lisa Dusseault", "text": "If we don't merge the documents -- since the authors themselves agree they have ideas they'd like to merge -- we would not have a combined draft to even consider as a WG document.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:21:52Z"}, {"author": "Martin Thomson", "text": "FWIW, the chairs have considerable discretion when it comes to the allocation of editors
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:21:55Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "Yeah, I need to hold the pen here
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:22:14Z"}, {"author": "Lisa Dusseault", "text": "Merging the documents is not by itself a consensus decision; the merged document would be reviewed.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:22:19Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "need NOT
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:22:21Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "lisa, I just think it's premature, and also that this sets the WG on the wrong track too early in the discussion.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:22:27Z"}, {"author": "Lars Eggert", "text": "Ooops. Important N
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:22:29Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "too late
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:22:36Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "Thank you for your ongoing service Lars
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:22:48Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "Speaking for 1/15th of the IESG, consolidation is a good idea. Or at least if you don't, send all of them together.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:23:05Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "Pete's perhaps correct but it can be good to have text with whcih to disagree
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:23:09Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "+1 Once again agree with Pete and share the ambivalence
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:23:17Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "I have always had a hard time with IESG effectively mandating any set of documents to be a WG's baseline. In this case I think it's even more dangerous than usual.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:23:20Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "The great thing about starting from a doc is that everyone will very quickly point out what needs to be changed
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:23:36Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "That's not what that was.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:23:59Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "David: the bad thing is that it prejudices the outcome of the group with very little discussion had since WG formation.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:24:17Z"}, {"author": "John Klensin", "text": "Now, if the authors of all three, having listened to this discussion, wanted to revise their separate docs separately, I'd be much more supportive of using the results as a starting point.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:24:26Z"}, {"author": "Lisa Dusseault", "text": "Encouraging these authors to work together is not in any way closing the list of possible WG inputs at this point.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:24:34Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "\"ecahc\" is pronounced \"EKR\"
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:25:13Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Lisa: it doesn't formally close off other authors submitting drafts, but I do think it's likely to have that effect.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:25:21Z"}, {"author": "Brian Haberman", "text": "\"ecahc\" sounds like a cat spitting up a hairball
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:25:41Z"}, {"author": "Murray Kucherawy", "text": "Effective Control of Activity involving Human Collaboration
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:25:51Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "I actually think this is a process error.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:26:16Z"}, {"author": "Carolina Caeiro", "text": "thank you all
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:26:50Z"}, {"author": "Bron Gondwana", "text": "@keith you're very much in the rough but of course you're free to appeal it to the IESG
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:26:59Z"}, {"author": "David Schinazi", "text": "Thank you chairs! And everyone!
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:27:14Z"}, {"author": "Keith Moore", "text": "Bron: yeah, like they're going to take it seriously.
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:27:18Z"}, {"author": "Bron Gondwana", "text": "that makes you even more in the rough then; if everyone here plus the leadership disagrees with your assessment
", "time": "2024-11-04T14:28:08Z"}]