RE: Evaluating a draft on restricting posting rights

["Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras@haledorr.com>]

Marshall,

It might also be nice to reference or repeat the list of inappropriate behavior from RFC 3005, which I've reproduced below for convenience:

"Inappropriate postings include:

    - Unsolicited bulk e-mail
    - Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
      activities, or technical concerns
    - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
    - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
      sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF."

This is pretty good, but there may be more that people want to add.  

I like this list because it gives some actual guidelines to the IESG, rather than relying on more vague standards of "abusive" conduct.  Of course, each of the guidelines is itself subject to some interpretation, and we'll never have mathematical precision, but this might be a step in the right direction.

Jorge


-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Rose [mailto:mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 5:29 PM
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: Contreras, Jorge; iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Evaluating a draft on restricting posting rights


> [note - adding Marshall to the CC line, since Jorge came up with some 
> suggestions for improvement that I think are worth considering....]
    
harald - thanks.
    
jorge - i think i can address all three concerns by changing a paragraph
and adding one more.
    
take a look at the revised paragraph at the bottom of page 3 and the new
paragraph at the bottom of page 5.
    
let me know what you think.
    
thanks!
    
/mtr
    
> --On onsdag, mai 07, 2003 09:02:50 -0400 "Contreras, Jorge" 
> <Jorge.Contreras@haledorr.com> wrote:
> 
> > This standard is a little loose.  I would prefer to see a more
> > detailed rationale for initiating a P-R Action.  There is a good
> > discussion of appropriate discussion list behavior in RFC 3005, which
> > is cited in the mrose I-D.  However, technically, RFC 3005 only applies
> > to the IETF discussion list itself, and not all WG discussion lists.
> > Perhaps it would be a good idea to import the concepts from 3005
> > into this I-D so that there is a general IETF standard of acceptable
> > discussion list behavior.  You could then say that repeated violations
> > of the "acceptable behavior" guidelines may lead to a P-R Action.
> 
> would citing RFC 3184 - "guidelines for conduct" be helpful?
> 
> > I also note the mrose reference to Section 6.1 of RFC 2418.  The better
> > reference might actually be to the last paragraph of Section 3.2,
> > which addresses the issue of disruptive postings directly, but in a
> > less detailed manner than either 3005 or the mrose I-D.  I would also
> > ask whether the mrose I-D, if it becomes a BCP, is intended to
> > supersede the last paragraph of Sec. 3.2 of RFC 2418?  If so, I think
> > this should be made explicit.
> 
> I'd forgotten that paragraph - good catch!
> 
> > I also like the thought in 2418, 3.2 that the "barred" person should
> > still be able to *receive* postings from IETF lists, even if he/she
> > can't post anymore.
> 
> that's so obvious, nobody thought of stating it....
> 
>