Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF Mailing Lists
Lets IETF working group chairs suspend a disruptive person's list posting for up to 30 days.
Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF Mailing Lists", RFC 3934, DOI 10.17487/RFC3934, October 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3934>.
@misc{rfc3934,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 3934,
howpublished = {RFC 3934},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC3934},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3934},
author = {M. Wasserman},
title = {{Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF Mailing Lists}},
pagetotal = 5,
year = 2004,
month = oct,
} RFC text
Contents
Network Working Group M. Wasserman Request for Comments: 3934 ThingMagic Updates: 2418 October 2004 BCP: 94 Category: Best Current Practice Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the Management of IETF Mailing Lists Status of this Memo This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). Abstract This document is an update to RFC 2418 that gives WG chairs explicit responsibility for managing WG mailing lists. In particular, it gives WG chairs the authority to temporarily suspend the mailing list posting privileges of disruptive individuals. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Specific Changes to RFC 2418 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction As written, RFC 2418 [RFC2418] gives WG chairs more authority to manage face-to-face discussions than to manage mailing list discussions. In face-to-face meetings, the WG chair has the authority "to refuse to grant the floor to any individual who is unprepared or otherwise covering inappropriate material, or who, in the opinion of the Chair, is disrupting the WG process." However, RFC 2418 does not give the WG Chair the authority to suspend the mailing list posting privileges of an individual who is similarly disrupting WG mailing list discussions. RFC 2418 explicitly requires full IESG approval for this action. This document is an update to RFC 2418, section 3.2. It gives WG chairs the authority to temporarily suspend the posting privileges of disruptive individuals without IESG approval. 2. Specific Changes to RFC 2418 The following paragraphs supersede the last paragraph of RFC 2418, section 3.2: As in face-to-face sessions, occasionally one or more individuals may engage in behavior on a mailing list that, in the opinion of the WG chair, is disruptive to the WG process. Unless the disruptive behavior is severe enough that it must be stopped immediately, the WG chair should attempt to discourage the disruptive behavior by communicating directly with the offending individual. If the behavior persists, the WG chair should send at least one public warning on the WG mailing list. As a last resort and typically after one or more explicit warnings and consultation with the responsible Area Director, the WG chair may suspend the mailing list posting privileges of the disruptive individual for a period of not more than 30 days. Even while posting privileges are suspended, the individual must not be prevented from receiving messages posted to the list. Like all other WG chair decisions, any suspension of posting privileges is subject to appeal, as described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. This mechanism is intended to permit a WG chair to suspend posting privileges of a disruptive individual for a short period of time. This mechanism does not permit WG chairs to suspend an individual's posting privileges for a period longer than 30 days regardless of the type or severity of the disruptive incident. However, further disruptive behavior by the same individual will be considered separately and may result in further warnings or suspensions. Other methods of mailing list control, including longer suspensions, must be carried out in accordance with other IETF-approved procedures. See BCP 83 [RFC3683] for one set of procedures already defined and accepted by the community. 3. Security Considerations This document describes a modification to the IETF process for managing mailing list discussions. It has no security considerations. 4. Acknowledgements This document reflects a discussion that was held on the MPOWR mailing list in December 2003 and January 2004. In particular, the following people contributed ideas that influenced this document: Harald Alvestrand, Dave Crocker, James Kempf, and John Klensin. This document was written with the xml2rfc tool described in RFC 2629 [RFC2629]. 5. References 5.1. Normative References [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 5.2. Informative References [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, June 1999. [RFC3683] Rose, M., "A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 83, RFC 3683, March 2004. 6. Author's Address Margaret Wasserman ThingMagic One Broadway, 14th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 USA Phone: +1 617 758 4177 EMail: margaret@thingmagic.com URI: http://www.thingmagic.com/ 7. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and at www.rfc-editor.org, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the ISOC's procedures with respect to rights in ISOC Documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
AI ELI5
On this page
§1The Gap in RFC 2418
RFC 2418 gave working group (WG) chairs more authority over face-to-face discussions than over mailing list discussions. In meetings, a chair can refuse to grant the floor to anyone who is unprepared, covering inappropriate material, or in the chair's opinion disrupting the WG process.
For a mailing list, RFC 2418 did not give the chair authority to suspend an individual's posting privileges, and explicitly required full IESG approval for that action. RFC 3934 updates section 3.2 of RFC 2418 so chairs can temporarily suspend posting privileges without IESG approval.
A teacher could tell a noisy kid to stop talking in class, but could not do the same in the class chat. This fixes that.
§2The Escalation Steps
The replacement text lays out steps. Unless the behavior is severe enough that it must be stopped immediately, the chair should first try to discourage it by communicating directly with the individual. If it persists, the chair should send at least one public warning on the WG list.
As a last resort, typically after one or more explicit warnings and consultation with the responsible Area Director, the chair may suspend posting privileges for not more than 30 days. The person must still be able to receive messages posted to the list. Like all other chair decisions, a suspension is subject to appeal as described in RFC 2026.
First the chair asks nicely, then warns in public, and only then pauses the person's posting for a short time. The person can still read what others write.
§3Limits of the Mechanism
The mechanism is meant for short suspensions only. It does not let a chair suspend privileges for more than 30 days, whatever the type or severity of the incident. Further disruption by the same person is considered separately and may bring further warnings or suspensions.
Longer suspensions and other methods of list control must follow other IETF-approved procedures. The RFC points to BCP 83 (RFC 3683) as one set already accepted by the community. Its Security Considerations section says the change affects process only and has no security considerations.
A chair can only give a short time-out. Anything longer needs a different, bigger process.