Tim BrayFeb 28

Much-needed action by the IETF: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9945.html

Tl;dr: Sand has historically been thrown in the gears by disruptive assholes, and the remediation process was ultra-heavyweight and slow.

Axiom: Anything public-facing requires investment in moderation guardrails and processes.

RFC 9945: IETF Community Moderation

The IETF community will treat people with kindness and grace, but not endless patience. This memo obsoletes RFCs 3683 and 3934, and it updates RFCs 2418 and 9245 by establishing a policy for the moderation of disruptive participation across the IETF's various public contribution channels and discussion fora. It establishes guardrails for moderation and a moderator team. That team will develop a set of moderation procedures and facilitate their consistent implementation with chairs and administrators.

Show threaddegenerating degenerateFeb 28
@timbray Just pointing out as someone specifically named in this document, you are patting yourself on the back here.
Show threadJeffrey Haas

@hopeless @timbray As someone NOT mentioned in the document but responsible for one of the appendix B lines - whatever. The document at least helps provide justification for infrastructure that lets moderation happen.

The fact that so much of the conversation covering "disruption" was a "we'll know it when we see it" - and yet, "be conservative in applying our moderation powers" just gives the nasty children the line they'll toe and only cross... just a little.

Mar 1 at 3:34pmWeb
Show threadsayrerMar 2

@jhaas @hopeless @timbray that's right. I wrote Appendix B in its entirety (some of it copy/paste from older things). We had been discussing "polite but disruptive", but you called it "sealioning" on the mic. That's the term. I hope we got it, so you can point right there if need be. You probably should have been credited

I wrote this part: "The IETF community will treat people with kindness and grace, but not endless patience."

The idea being that if you get sent that one, you will chill out.

Show threadJeffrey HaasMar 2

@sayrer @hopeless @timbray The sealioning point was adequately captured, thanks.

Appendix B, and the point you cite yourself, are things that shouldn't have been cast to the back as an appendix in my opinion. The real underlying issue was never really "we need additional moderation staff". Instead, it was that better lines on transgressive behavior would mean such things were moderated earlier.

Show threadsayrerMar 2

@jhaas @hopeless @timbray It took a lot of convincing to get them to put that in. Lars was super skeptical--he thought people would say "it's not on the list, so it's allowed" from past experience.

The point I cite is the first sentence in the abstract :)