Subject: [mpowr] Mailing List Management

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:18:39 -0800

Margaret's draft proposes letting WG chairs manage mailing list membership,
rather than requiring the IESG to do it as is currently the case. From my
experience as a WG chair, I can say that there is nothing as effective in
derailing a WG as a disruptive mailing list participant, and once such a
disruption occurs, it is often difficult to get any good technical work out
of the WG because the really good technical people simply leave. I've also
been told by other WG chairs who have tried that the IESG is extremely
reluctant to remove someone from a mailing list, even if the evidence of
disruption is quite apparent. I suspect that is why this proposal was a
crowd pleaser when brought up at the plenary in Minneapolis.

However, there have been some concerns expressed. Scott Bradner mentioned
the potential of a liability problem, and Alex Contra mentioned the problem
of chair abuse. The latter would presumably be when a chair designates as
"disruptive" someone who is honestly but persistently expressing an opinion
on technical matters that is contrary to what the chair believes should be
part of the WG's documents. Clearly, there's a boundary here between
disruption and honest disagreement, but the boundary is not always clear.

Suppose that in order to join an IETF WG mailing list, a person would have
to agree to a mailing list "Code of Conduct" by clicking through a page that
describes it. The "Code of Conduct" could be checked by lawyers to make sure
it can be defensible legally, as would the signup procedure. And it would
mean that the mailing list would need to be hosted somewhere that could
support a more elaborate signup procedure than today. Then, when a WG chair
believes that a participant is being disruptive, (s)he would send three
email messages privately to the particpant, cc'ing the AD, with specific
evidence, in the form of emails, posting statistics (for people who are
spamming the list), etc., requesting the participant to cease. If the three
email messages don't work, the WG chair would then discuss the matter with
the AD and, with the AD's approval (sent as an email message to the WG
chair), the chair would send email to the participant that his/her posting
privileges were being revoked for a three month period. The participant
could appeal to the IESG if (s)he felt that (s)he was being treated
unfairly.

Comments?

            jak

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:46:54 -0700 (MST)

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, James Kempf wrote:

> Suppose that in order to join an IETF WG mailing list, a person
> would have to agree to a mailing list "Code of Conduct" ... And it
> would mean that the mailing list would need to be hosted somewhere
> that could support a more elaborate signup procedure than today.

I believe the above would be a step in the right direction: having
formal IETF membership. From technical point of view, this does not
preclude anonymous membership; I am not sure about the legal point of
view. This does not imply membership fees, from any point of view.

For many automation tools, such as ID publication and review
management, formal membership is essential. It is also a shame and a
problem that IETF does not seem to know how many informal members it
has, even approximately; not to mention their technical background and
country of origin. Thus, if the legal burden is low, formal membership
(i.e., registration) is a good thing, IMO.

However, I would be [pleasantly] surprised if you can get consensus on
the formal membership issue. You do not have to call it formal
membership, but what your propose is, essentially, formal membership.

> Then, when a WG chair believes that a participant is being
> disruptive, (s)he would send three email messages privately to the
> particpant, cc'ing the AD, with specific evidence, in the form of
> emails, posting statistics (for people who are spamming the list),
> etc., requesting the participant to cease. If the three email
> messages don't work, the WG chair would then discuss the matter with
> the AD and, with the AD's approval (sent as an email message to the
> WG chair), the chair would send email to the participant that
> his/her posting privileges were being revoked

Sounds reasonable to me. To protect the innocent better, I would
require that the suspect being CCed on all related correspondence with
the AD.

> for a three month period.

This should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The rule should have a
maximum suspension period and no minimum. The rule can recommend a 15
day suspension for first time offenders
(10 day suspension for children; sorry, could not resist).

> The participant could appeal to the IESG if (s)he felt that (s)he
> was being treated unfairly.

As always.

Alex.

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:10:07 -0500

jak,

I am very sympathetic with your experience.

But, I fundamentally disagree with this proposal. Please see further 
comments - sorry if they are repetition of what was already said before 
on this topic:

James Kempf wrote:

> of the WG because the really good technical people simply leave. 

I am sorry, I cannot agree with such a brute force solution.

As IETF has gained over the years such a large international Email 
attendance, with a unequaled diversity of backgrounds, traditions, 
educations, opinions, interests, ideas, etc... it should put no barriers 
to the free expression of ideas, or opinions pertaining to the topics of 
a WG work.

IETF is an OPEN standard, and that is a BIG difference with the other 
competing SDOs, which have more or even more stringent rules about their 
mailing lists.

Freedom of speech, and free access is one of the characteristics that 
makes IETF OPEN.

Taking away the freedom of speech should have the very high threshold, 
if not higher than that of today's.

> I've also
> disruption is quite apparent. 

Hm, that's a browny point for IESG.

On the other hand, I think IESG should have helped you resolve the 
crisis in the WG by other means. Have you asked for other type of help 
from IESG, other than stopping Email access?  This sounds like a typical 
technical conflict resolution problem, for which there is a science and 
professionals, who would be glad to help.

> I suspect that is why this proposal was a
> of chair abuse. 

It is Alex Conta.

There were other earlier voices on the "solutions" list. Please check.

> The latter would presumably be when a chair designates as

That's is exactly the reason why, if we do anything now, that should be 
to raise the threshold even higher.

> support a more elaborate signup procedure than today. 

I wonder what would you put in the code of conduct regarding a technical 
controversy, or regarding technical content disagreement?

> Then, when a WG chair

In my opinion, the reluctance of IESG to grant requests of shutting off 
people from the mailing list, who are within the boundaries of technical 
content, is wise.

Alex

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:26:31 -0800

Alex,

Sorry for misspelling your name.

> professionals, who would be glad to help.

With respect to my experience as a WG chair, the problem had nothing to do
with a technical conflict. The participant who was being disruptive was
sending email about how the AD and the co-chairs were mis-managing the WG,
i.e. it was exclusively process comments. At one point, private email was
sent to someone involved in the WG threatening them with physical violence
at an IETF meeting. After this incident, it was difficult to accomplish any
good technical work in the WG.

In this case, there was no need to involve the IESG. Between the AD, the
other co-chair, and myself, we resolved the problem in a different way. We
didn't appeal to the IESG because, as I said, the IESG's track record of
removing people who are disruptive is not particularly good (though I think
they might have acted in this case).

Frankly, after this experience, I have some amount of difficulty
understanding your position. Such unprofessional, uncivilized behavior is
not tolerated in any other professional group or nonprofessional civil
society in general; yet, we routinely tolerate it on IETF mailing lists, if
not perhaps in the most extreme form I've cited here.

I've advanced this proposal (which I agree with Margaret is perhaps more
complex than necessary) in order to meet your and Scott's concerns.
Personally, I believe WG chairs and ADs should have the right to throw
anybody off the list they agree is being disruptive. If anybody thinks they
are being treated unfairly, they can always appeal.

            jak

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:18:49 -0500

jak,

James Kempf wrote:
> [...]
 > [...]

Thanks for sharing this experience.

> understanding your position. 

Free speech is so fundamental.

> [...] 
> complex than necessary) 
> [...]

I strongly believe in your and Margaret's integrity and good intentions. 
The problem is not that.

This rule may outlast many's presence in IETF, including mine, yours, or 
Margaret's.

A rule like yours, applied by good people could be a good rule.

The same rule applied by bad people can be a very bad rule.

For this rule, I know well. For others, I may not know.

Therefore, it is for all of us to strive to create and adopt rules that 
cannot be bad in bad people's hands.

Alex

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:56:55 -0600

To be brief - I agree that our "open lists" don't always work for us.

I agree that it shouldn't take the entire IESG ("who should be working
on stuff that matters more") to suspend posting privileges.

I agree that a WG chair (in practice, almost always a pair of WG
co-chairs, and if so, both co-chairs should agree) should notify the
responsible AD that they are suspending a participant's posting
privileges.

I agree that suspended participants should have the right of appeal to
the responsible AD.

I agree that the number of warnings can be variable, but there should
be a "last" warning, whatever number that turns out to be.

I'm not sure if it's been stated in this thread, but I believe this
should be a rare occurance, and notice of suspension should happen on
the mailing list (so the curious can go read the postings, which may
be in French, babelfish.altavista.com them into an appropriate
language, and decide whether an appeal is appropriate).

Spencer

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:45:17 -0800

James,

in my opinion Alex Conta and Scott Bradner are wrong.

There are cases where, for the good of the working group, a person should 
have his or her posting privilleges revoked - FAST - as on the order of a 
day or three.

This is NOT a free speech issue - it has to do with the ability of the IETF 
to conduct its work in an open and orderly fashion - BOTH open AND orderly.

For these cases, a simple procedure with 100% clarity on who makes the 
decision is needed - not a "three strikes and then wait another month" 
procedure, as any procedure involving the whole IESG is likely to be.

There are other cases where a person is highly disruptive but you have a 
hard time figuring out why it's disruptive or improper; there are still 
other cases where a valid, rational technical argument gradually descends 
into name-calling and truly improper conduct. There will always be 
borderline cases, and because there will be borderline cases, we need 
procedures for consultation, and we need procedures for appeal and review.

But there are cases where the WG chair needs to have this power, and needs 
to be able to apply it quickly.

The rabble-rousers of the world are free to rabble-rouse wherever they 
want. But no IETF participant should be obliged to listen.

                    Harald

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:01:53 -0500

--On Saturday, December 20, 2003 21:45 -0800 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

> There are cases where, for the good of the working group, a
> person should have his or her posting privilleges revoked -
> FAST - as on the order of a day or three.
> 
> This is NOT a free speech issue - it has to do with the
> ability of the IETF to conduct its work in an open and orderly
> fashion - BOTH open AND orderly.
> 
> For these cases, a simple procedure with 100% clarity on who
> makes the decision is needed - not a "three strikes and then
> wait another month" procedure, as any procedure involving the
> whole IESG is likely to be.

Two additions to Harald's comments...

As people have probably deduced from other comments I've made,
I'm very concerned about the ability of the IETF to produce high
quality standards in, with apologies to Wirth, as much time as
that takes but no longer.   I don't think we are doing nearly as
well at that -- along either the quality or speed/efficiency
dimensions-- as we were several years ago.  There are certainly
some reasons for that which are unavoidable, e.g., our typical
standard today really does seem to be more complex than was
typical, say, a decade ago.  But some of it is that "we" have
just gotten tied up in a lot more procedures and rules and
requirements.    And, sometimes because of those procedures and
requirements and sometimes because there is just less sense of
collaboration and community, we seem much more subject to DoS
attacks... whether through volume or abuse and whether
intentionally or not.

Those attacks need be to stopped in a length of time that is
inverse to their severity.  If someone is merely making a few
off-topic postings too many, there should reasonably be warnings
and a serious attempt to be sure that the person understands
what is, and is not, off-topic before anyone starts
contemplating revoking privileges.  With more severe attacks, it
may be entirely appropriate, IMO, to pull someone off a list
instantly and negotiate (or appeal, or whatever) later.

Do we need firm rules or procedures to cover these cases?  I
certainly hope not: not only do I not want to see more
procedures, but because I am certain that they will not work,
especially against someone whose intent really is to disrupt or
prevent work getting done.   I believe we should look at every
potential new rule or procedure and ask ourselves the questions:

	(i) What is the problem this proposed rule is trying to
	solve?
	
	(ii) Will it actually solve that problem, or does it
	only address the easy cases that can be dealt with in
	other ways and/or some problem that occurred once or
	twice in the past but may not occur again?  Put
	differently, if some protocol lawyer and potential
	deliberate abuser comes along and reads the rule, will
	he or she be able to find a loophole through which to
	cause harm and then claim that it is permitted behavior
	since the rule doesn't say anything about it?    If the
	answer to that question is "yes", we are better off
	without highly-specific rules and procedures in almost
	all cases.
	
	(iii) Can we solve the problem equally well by clearly
	giving someone discretion and authority (ideally with
	general guidelines that represent clear community
	consensus) and then holding them responsible if they
	abuse one or the other or both?

If the answers to those questions don't clearly indicate that we
need a new rule we are, IMO, almost always better off without
it.  And I think the IESG ought to be going through the current
collection of procedural rules, finding the ones that wouldn't
be approved if the above criteria were applied, and getting rid
of them.

Now, going down this path probably implies that we will have
more appeals, and maybe even a few recalls, in our future than
we have had in the past.  Personally, I would prefer to see that
rather than having us spend large amounts of time getting rules
just right which then, because of the loophole problem or other
characteristics, end up getting appealed anyway.

If the Nomcom does not understand that ADs are going to need to
exercise a good deal of discretion so that it selects only
people for those positions who can be trusted to do so wisely,
then we better given them the message because nothing is going
to work otherwise, no matter how many rules we make.   If ADs
don't understand that WG Chairs intrinsically have a lot of
discretion and that they need to select only those people as WG
Chairs who can be trusted to exercise it wisely, then we need a
different set of ADs -- and, again, the Nomcom needs to
understand that the ability to make those selection decisions
wisely is an important requirement for ADs.

So, should a WG Chair have the authority to put someone off a
mailing list for at least a while?  Yes, I think so (and really
see no alternative that doesn't tie us in knots).  Should there
be some guidelines so that WG Chairs can guess what is
appropriate, yes, if we can get someone to do the work.   Should
someone ejected from a list have the right to get (via appeal or
otherwise), a quick review and response from the AD?  Yes, and I
hope that doesn't require a rule (see below).  Should the WG
Chair consult the relevant AD before pushing someone off a list?
Yes, that would be sensible and reasonable.  Should we _require_
that the WG Chair do that?  No, I don't think so, partially
because, if something really needs immediate action and the AD
isn't available, the action shouldn't need to wait... But a WG
Chair who pushes someone off a mailing list --or takes any of
several other actions I think a WG Chair should be able to take
on his or her own-- ought to expect to get fired if the AD later
concludes that the judgments involved were excessively bad.

So, the needed rules here are:

	(1) A WG Chair can eject someone from a meeting or
	mailing list or take any other reasonable action, if it
	is reasonably and sensibly required to prevent or
	eliminate disruptive activities so that the WG can get
	work done.  In exercising that authority, the WG Chair
	is expected to consult as necessary and reflect current
	community culture and judgment as to what actions are
	appropriate under what types of circumstances.
	
	(2) Someone who has been ejected from a mailing list or
	otherwise subjected to WG Chair discipline has the right
	to appeal and has the right to expect a timely review
	and response to the first stage appeal to the relevant
	AD.  ADs who do not respond to such appeals on a timely
	basis are a menace to the smooth and efficient workings
	of the IETF and should be swiftly recalled.

What is interesting about those rules, of course, is that they
don't require any changes to existing written formal rules and
procedures, only the application of common sense to those
rules... and changes to some of our habits and assumptions about
how we do business.

Two final coments, lest I be accused about writing too-short
notes :-(

(1) "Free speech" makes a nice chant.  There are any number of
places on the Internet in which it can be exercised.  But,
chants aside, the interpretation of "free speech" necessary to
have a society work is that one person's free speech not create
dangers for, or infringe on the rights of, others.   In the IETF
context, one should be "free" to "speak" on a given mailing
list, or in a WG meeting, if ones postings are reasonably
on-topic, constructive, polite, and civilized.  If not, we need
to remember that the costs of excessive hostile postings (for
any definition of "hostile") include driving people off lists
and participation in discussions whose input really would be
valuable.  We must not get to the point at which it becomes
acceptable to have the requirements for participating in an IETF
WG be not only expertise and a concern about the issues but also
the willingness to suffer high-volume abuse.  If we drive away
the people who do have the expertise and concern but won't take
the abuse, any claims we make to _community_ consensus around
the results of the relevant WGs work become highly questionable.

(2) This issue has nothing to do with debates about the
political theory of the rights/ authority of a group versus
those of it chair/ moderator/ leadership.  Down through the
centuries, people and organizations have always discovered that
open, everyone-talks-at-once, assemblies are a lousy way of
getting anything done and, as a result, figured out some
"leadership" selection mechanism.  And, regardless of how those
people are selected (or for how long, or by whom), they always
end up being give the authority to restrain or eject or isolate
someone who is being sufficiently disruptive... or the
organization doesn't survive and function.  So, while I think
ongoing discussions about how Chairs are selected, and to whom
they have the most responsibility, are worthwhile, I think we
need to accept that, in order to get work done, Chairs are going
to need some authority to steer or moderate discussions,
interpret and enforce agendas, and limit potential damage or
disruptions... or we are basically finished around here except
for the shouting (or whimpering).

      john

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:29:13 -0500

Harald,

> in my opinion Alex Conta and Scott Bradner are wrong.

I will describe this as a difference in opinion rather than using terms 
of right and wrong.

I think the current rule regarding managing the IETF mailing is
wise, and a needed checks and balances mechanism.

Here is why:

WG chairs are NOT process and people managers ONLY.
WG chairs can be a directly interested party in a technical debate, and 
therefore, they may directly benefit from the power of removing one or 
more people from the WG mailing list.

> 
> There are cases where, for the good of the working group, a person 
> should have his or her posting privilleges revoked - FAST - as on the 
> order of a day or three.
> 

"Being disruptive to the WG" cannot be measured in absolute terms. If 
the WG chair is to decide that, and act on it, it may vary from one to 
another.

> This is NOT a free speech issue - it has to do with the ability of the 
> IETF to conduct its work in an open and orderly fashion - BOTH open AND 
> orderly.
> 

What does "orderly" mean?

IETF should be proud of having multi-voice, aggressive, and perhaps 
sometimes long debates. That's what makes it very different from a 
"sanitized", one-voice environment.

Dictatorial environments are known to be more orderly than democratic 
ones.

> procedure, as any procedure involving the whole IESG is likely to be.

No problem with clarity of "procedure, and responsibility on decision".

> other cases where a valid, rational technical argument gradually 
> descends into name-calling and truly improper conduct. 

"Improper conduct" is also sort of relative up to a certain point.

What is the status of the "IETF code of conduct"?

> [...]
> But there are cases where the WG chair needs to have this power, and 
> needs to be able to apply it quickly.
> 

If WG chairs were process and people managers ONLY, I would not have a 
problem.

Replacing a checks and balances mechanism, with a rule of "power to 
apply it quickly" makes it like a "state of emergency".

> want. But no IETF participant should be obliged to listen.

For instance, nobody forces you to read my message.

If my message is disruptive to you, you could have:

- ignore it, and further
- configure a filter to send my messages on this thread, on this list, 
in this WG, etc.... directly to the TRASH folder.

Alex

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:51:42 -0700 (MST)

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Alex Conta wrote:

> - configure a filter to send my messages on this thread, on this
>   list, in this WG, etc.... directly to the TRASH folder.

I had the same thought when reading this thread, but realized that
installing a filter or otherwise ignoring a message is not a complete
solution because it violates WG Chair responsibility to gauge
consensus. If one could ignore or filter only "consensus-unrelated"
messages, then we would have a perfect solution. Unfortunately,
ignoring/filtering based on sender or subject line does not guarantee
that all consensus-related messages will be read.

However, it looks like filtering is a solution for everybody else (but
the Chair). Participants do not have to gauge consensus so they can
ignore whatever they want (and they often do!).

Let's assume that everybody but the Chair are ignoring what they
consider disruptive postings. In most cases, this is likely to solve
the reported problem of disruptive postings blocking technical work.
The poor Chair will have to listen to the lonely/loony voice(s) of the
participant(s) being ignored and gauge consensus. In fact, the Chair
becomes a de facto moderator in this context!

This approach does not violate free speech. As you know, none of the
countries guaranteeing free speech was able to guarantee that the
speech will be heard or have any effect. With the Chair's implied
obligation to listen, we are actually doing slightly better than most
countries advertising their free speech laws!

Can somebody with a real-life disruptive experience comment on this
solution? Would it help in their specific cases?

Alex.

P.S. My understanding is that the Chair is not obligated to
     respond, only listen (to gauge consensus).

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:17:43 -0500

John C Klensin wrote:

> [...] Should
> hope that doesn't require a rule (see below). 

There is an inherent contradiction between a well thought appeal 
decision, and quick. Today ADs/IESG do not act quickly on WG chairs 
requests of "remove" - "quick" will be the incentive to simply approve 
the decision of the chairs.

>[...] No, I don't think so, partially
> because, if something really needs immediate action 
 > [...]

I fail to understand or see the cases in which there is need for 
"immediate action". I would appreciate if one would describe it.

> But a WG

Can you remind of any fired WG chair? I do not remember any, and I 
certainly do not expect a chair not being able to justify an abusive 
action within the boundaries of its powers.

> [...]Two final coments, lest I be accused about writing too-short
> notes :-(
> 

I worked hard to make it shorter :-)...

>  [...]  Down through the
> "leadership" selection mechanism. 
> [...] 
>       john
> 
> 

complemented by some checks and balances mechanisms, which the current 
mailing list remove rule I think is.

Alex

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:35:47 -0800

AlexR,

> solution? Would it help in their specific cases?

I've had experience with disruptive participants on mailing lists, and the
answer is, no it would not help.

The problem is that when a disruptor appears, the good technical people tend
to leave. It is a little like spam, except there is an easy way to stop it -
unsubscribe from the mailing list. After a major incident of mailing list
disruption, a WG tends to get derailed and to lose effectiveness, and it can
become difficult for the chair to get the WG back on track. After more than
one incident, the good technical people tend to write the WG off as
"hopeless" and leave for other more productive venues.

The solution is to get the disruptor off the list as soon as possible,
before people begin to give up on the WG. Unfortunately, this does require a
judgement call on the part of the chair and the AD, and its possible that
they might judge wrong. That's why it is necessary to have an appeals
process for people who feel they've been treated unfairly. From the
experience I've had and talking with other WG chairs who have had similar
experiences, I feel that the risk of losing a WG to mailing list disruption
is much higher than having an autocratic chair that shuts someone out just
because they have a different technical opinion. Actually, I've never seen
an instance of the latter, and I know of at least two cases of the former.
So I believe that allowing the WG chair and AD to remove mailing list
participants with the particpant allowed to appeal to the IESG if they feel
treated unfairly is the right way to go. I believe that both WG chairs
should agree if there are co-chairs for the WG, and the AD should be
consulted.

However, I'm still undecided about whether the WG chairs should be allowed
to remove someone if the AD doesn't respond quickly enough, as John Klensin
has proposed. On the one hand, I see the need for speed, having experienced
the problems a lag can cause when an AD is busy elsewhere. On the other, I
believe the risk is much higher that a WG chair may make a wrong judgement
call if AD approval is not required.

            jak

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:42:28 -0700 (MST)

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, James Kempf wrote:

> to leave.

Could the good technical people be quickly advised by more experienced
IETFers (e.g., the Chair) to setup a simple filter? Sure, some e-mails
will still get through, but if the good technical people care enough
about the WG work, it seems like a small price to pay to stay involved
in that work.

Alex.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:53:45 -0800

Alex,

> about the WG work, it seems like a small price to pay to stay involved

So I guess I don't see any difference between the chair sending out email
saying "filter this guy's email" and the chair removing the person from the
list, except from a theoretical standpoint. The net effect is the same:
nobody reads the disruptor's email. Also, I'm not sure I agree that everyone
should be forced into the inconvenience of having to modify their spam
filters just so that a single person can continue to post.

The other problem with this is that I would presume that the chairs and the
disruptor, with participation of the AD, would undergo some kind of private
discussion about the disruptor's behavior with the intent that the disruptor
could be readmitted to the list when they've cleaned up their act, so to
speak. The removal is not meant to permanently disable posting rights, after
all. If the problem is handled by having everyone put the disruptor's name
in the spam filter, then the chair has to send out an email saying "all
right, X has agreed to be a good boy/girl, you can take him out of your spam
filter now". Perhaps this kind of public humiliation would serve as a
deterrent, but I think it more likely that quiet negotiation and
reintroduction of the person into the WG community in a less intrusive way
would be preferable.

            jak

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:02:31 -0500

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, at 12:53 PM, James Kempf wrote:
> nobody reads the disruptor's email.

Except for the people who don't filter, which we know from
experience to be other people who like a brawl.  I'd say it's
actually a net loss in terms of the utility of the mailing list.

Melinda

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:31:35 -0700 (MST)

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, James Kempf wrote:

> So I guess I don't see any difference between the chair sending out
> email saying "filter this guy's email" and the chair removing the
> person from the list, except from a theoretical standpoint.

The e-mail will advise about available options (such as "filter this
guy's email"). It does not have to recommend any specific action.

> The net effect is the same: nobody reads the disruptor's email.

The effects are radically different: "nobody reads" versus "people who
consider guy's e-mail disruptive do not read".

> Also, I'm not sure I agree that everyone should be forced into the
> inconvenience of having to modify their spam filters just so that a
> single person can continue to post.

The inconvenience seem to be very minor given today's mail management
software. When/if IETF starts managing its own lists, this can be
further automated/simplified on IETF side.

> If the problem is handled by having everyone put the disruptor's
> name in the spam filter, then the chair has to send out an email
> saying "all right, X has agreed to be a good boy/girl, you can take
> him out of your spam filter now".

Yes. More precisely, the chair will forward (quote) X's e-mail
explaining X's intentions to the list. The decision to alter filters
remains with each participant, as always.

> Perhaps this kind of public humiliation would serve as a deterrent,
> but I think it more likely that quiet negotiation and reintroduction
> of the person into the WG community in a less intrusive way would be
> preferable.

I assume that quiet negotiation happens and fails before any action is
taken:

	Chair: Would you please pause while we talk in private?
	X:     No (and continues to post 5 messages/minute)
	Chair: Posts "your options" e-mail on the list

	Chair: Would you please pause while we talk in private?
	X:     Sure (stops posting for a day)
	Chair: Let's negotiate the settlement in private

Alex.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:06:03 -0800

AlexR,

I guess I see this as requiring a lot of mechanism  and difficulty just to
preserve the "right" of someone to post, and post disruptive email at that.
To my mind, there is a limit to which other people should be inconvenienced
by someone who is attempting to prevent useful work from getting done.

Also, there's Melinda's point.

My feeling is that as long as there is recourse for people who feel they are
unfairly treated, people's rights to speak freely are preserved.

            jak

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:02:59 -0700 (MST)

Quick question: While X's e-mails are blocked without a formal last
warning, can the WG decide on anything of value? For example, can the
WG decide on submitting the current draft as proposed standard? Or
accepting an individual draft as a WG work item?

If yes, then this would be a convenient way for the Chair's party to
win consensus on the issue (by silencing a few people who oppose the
decision). Surely, their posting "privileges"  will be restored a week
later, but it would take _another_ appeal to overrule any WG decisions
made during that week. Would it not?

Alex.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:12:31 -0800

AlexR,

Like I said in previous email, there is always the possibility for the WG
chairs and AD to make an error in judgement. Presumably, if the AD is
maintaining good management oversight, the probability of this happening is
low. If it does happen, appeals are always possible. In a situation like you
outline, I'd presume the party involved would appeal.

            jak

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:44:04 -0500

James Kempf wrote:

> to leave. [...]

I have never seen this happen, and it is hard to imagine such dynamics: 
  people's interest is the work in a WG, how can it be the mailing list? 
Can you point to an Email archive that would show this?

> Unfortunately, this does require a
> they might judge wrong. 

If I think of analogies to daily life, it is nightmarish.

> That's why it is necessary to have an appeals
> process for people who feel they've been treated unfairly. 

The appeal will be innefective, because the incentive is to uphold the 
decisions.

> From the

I am confused. How could you see the latter, since the rule is not yet 
in effect.

> should agree if there are co-chairs for the WG, and the AD should be

If this consultation is to take place, why not to leave the decision to 
the ADs, as it is today?

> the problems a lag can cause when an AD is busy elsewhere. 

What lag? Can you be more explicit? I asked this before, and no one 
explained why it is necessary to have a quick action?

> On the other, I

I would feel more comfortable if the WG chair would make a proposal and 
the decision would be taken by the ADs.

We could attach a time limit for the ADs action, to resolve the issue of 
  IESG not acting, although I think the no action, is caused by the 
uncomfort to take such decisions.

Alex C.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:54:23 -0800

Alex,

I have dealt with at least one environment where the level of disruptive 
participants was far higher than most IETF lists.

One of the things that was actively mentioned was that a banned participant 
could get other people to forward their argument while they were banned, if 
they had one they considered important.

None ever did.

                 Harald

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:47:57 -0700 (MST)

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> I have dealt with at least one environment where the level of
> disruptive participants was far higher than most IETF lists.
>
> One of the things that was actively mentioned was that a banned
> participant could get other people to forward their argument while
> they were banned, if they had one they considered important.
>
> None ever did.

None ever considered banned argument important or none ever forwarded
the banned argument?

I suspect that once/if we have easier banning rules, more people will
feel compelled to circumvent them. In fact, even with the existing
rules, IETF participants have faked e-mail, subscribed to the list
with more than one name, and done other terrible things (as privately
confirmed by a senior IETFer who was working on formalizing the
banning process).

IMO, this means that "easy" rules should be nearly perfect or should
not be.

Alex.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:27:40 -0800

> None ever considered banned argument important or none ever forwarded

None ever forwarded mail from a banned person (the observable fact). As far 
as I know, no banned person ever asked someone else to forward - but I 
can't guarantee that it never happened.
> confirmed by a senior IETFer who was working on formalizing the

Note that all of the "terrible" things you mention have happened WITHOUT an 
effective banning process.
> IMO, this means that "easy" rules should be nearly perfect or should

I don't follow the logic....

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:35:45 -0700 (MST)

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Note that all of the "terrible" things you mention have happened
> WITHOUT an effective banning process.

Exactly. This implies, to me, that there will be even more violations
if the banning process is formalized but has cheap loopholes.

> I don't follow the logic....

If the rules of the games are unknown a priory but determined by the
Oracle on a case-by-case basis, a violator will think twice before
upsetting the Oracle because the Oracle may adapt and punish even more
severely. Violations will still happen, of course.

If the rules are formal and known a priory, a violator that found a
legal loophole, would be more inclined to use it because the rules
would prohibit the punishment (by loophole definition). More
violations (of the rules intent) will happen.

Thus, if we are going to formalize something, we must make sure there
are no cheap loopholes. If the latter is impossible, we may be better
of without formalization.

Think, for example, of US tax law: those with resources to find
loopholes pay no or lesser taxes and do not feel threatened or guilty.
One could argue that they are violating the [original] intent of the
law, but they certainly do not violate the law (by loophole
definition).

Alex.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:45:32 -0500

--On Monday, 29 December, 2003 11:47 -0700 Alex Rousskov 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I suspect that once/if we have easier banning rules, more
> people will feel compelled to circumvent them. In fact, even
> with the existing rules, IETF participants have faked e-mail,
> subscribed to the list with more than one name, and done other
> terrible things (as privately confirmed by a senior IETFer who
> was working on formalizing the banning process).
>
> IMO, this means that "easy" rules should be nearly perfect or
> should not be.

Alex, I can't imagine why you think this follows.   In many 
organizations, and in the IETF in other areas than mailing list 
management, it is the hard/rigid rules that inspire people to 
see if they can game them.   It is the very specific rules that 
encourage people to do slightly outrageous things, safe in the 
knowledge that they can claim unfairness if those things violate 
the spirit, but not the letter, of the rules.

By contrast, whatever the other merits of the idea, "the WG 
chair can kick someone off a list, at least for a while, for 
being --in that person's opinion-- disruptive or generally 
irritating" isn't going to encourage rule-circumvention as an 
end in itself, if only because that would certainly be 
"generally irritating".

Now, if you had said "if we start kicking people off lists 
regularly and in large quantities, that would encourage 
circumvention", I'd probably agree... but suggest that would 
demonstrate that we have other problems which it would be good 
to get on the table.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that we need to function, as 
Dave Crocker has been pointing out (I hope I've correctly 
understood him), as a collaborative community.  No amount of 
rule-making is going to cause either a sense of collaboration or 
a sense of community to happen.  If we can't keep (or recover) 
that sense, then we need a rather different set of rules and 
structures, to the point that debates about mailing list 
participation is a waste of time.  Within such a community, it 
seems quite rational to me to tell WG Chairs that they have lead 
responsibility for WG progress.  If something or someone is 
interfering with that progress --including disruptions on 
mailing lists-- then they should be encouraged to stop it and, 
if necessary, pushed out of the way.  Should the AD be fully 
informed about such an action?  Of course.  Should it be 
appealable?  Even more obviously.  But the right way to deal 
with problems of these sorts _within a community_ is to catch 
them earlier and push back (which, IMO, should include involving 
the whole WG in a "shunning" process when that seems useful), 
not to try to solve them by creating ever-more-rigid and complex 
procedures.

Fewer formal procedures, more exercise of good sense, more 
unambiguous negative reinforcement for failure to exercise good 
sense....

     john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:09:56 -0800

Folks,

>  Dave Crocker has been pointing out (I hope I've correctly understood 
>  him), as a collaborative community.  No amount of rule-making is 
>  going to cause either a sense of collaboration or a sense of 
>  community to happen.  If we can't keep (or recover) that sense, then 
>  we need a rather different set of rules and structures, to the point 
>  that debates about mailing list participation is a waste of time.  
>  Within such a community, it seems quite rational to me to tell WG 
>  Chairs that they have lead responsibility for WG progress.  If 
>  something or someone is interfering with that progress --including 
>  disruptions on mailing lists-- then they should be encouraged to 
>  stop it and, if necessary, pushed out of the way.  Should the AD be 
>  fully informed about such an action?  Of course.  Should it be 
>  appealable?  Even more obviously.  But the right way to deal with 
>  problems of these sorts _within a community_ is to catch them 
>  earlier and push back (which, IMO, should include involving the 
>  whole WG in a "shunning" process when that seems useful), not to try 
>  to solve them by creating ever-more-rigid and complex procedures.
>  

I am quite happy with all of the above text and more than willing to 
accept attribution of any of it to me, whether I previously said it or 
not...

Here's a small amount I will offer as a response to the above content:

The IETF has succeeded because it has us an extraordinarily open and 
collaborative process, to develop timely solutions for requirements 
shared by a community eager to obtain thos solutions.  The IETF has 
notably employed highly flexible and subjective mechanisms to achieve 
this, in the belief that it needed only enough mechanism to permit an 
effort to function, and that more mechanism than was needed serves as a 
hindrance, not a help.  

"Rough Consensus" means that there is strong community support for a 
decision.  If there is strong community support, then little formality 
is needed.  If there is no strong community support, then substantial 
formality provides only veneer of legitimacy, not its reality .  

If there is strong community support, there is collaboration.
 
d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://brandenburg.com>