Session Date/Time: 04 Nov 2024 13:00

modpod

Summary

The modpod working group convened to discuss potential alterations to IETF moderation procedures, primarily affecting BCP 83 and BCP 45. Key topics included streamlining moderation, addressing moderation in alternate communication channels, and determining the appropriate entity for conducting moderation. The group discussed three input drafts and considered the option of consolidating them into a single document. A show of hands poll indicated support for using the "EAHC" draft as a baseline for consolidation.

Key Discussion Points

Need for Less Heavyweight Moderation: Existing processes (BCP 83, BCP 45) are too cumbersome and resource-intensive. A more streamlined and discreet approach is desired.
Moderation Beyond Mailing Lists: Current procedures don't address moderation in modern communication channels like Git, Wikis, and Jabber.
Who Should Moderate: Debate surrounding whether a moderation team, the IETF executive director, or other entities should handle moderation. Concerns raised about workload, consistency, and potential for misuse.
Transparency vs. Dignity: Balancing the need for transparency in moderation actions with protecting the dignity of individuals involved. Graduated transparency was suggested.
Relationship with Ombuds Team: Clarifying the dividing line between the moderation function and the Ombuds team's role. Updating RFC 7777 (Ombuds Procedures) is out of scope for the current charter.
Scale of Moderation Team: Concerns raised about the feasibility of a small team moderating all IETF communication channels. Discussion of whether the team should be proactive or reactive. Data on moderation actions on the IETF discuss list was shared.
Community vs. Professional Moderation: Discussed the pros and cons of volunteer-based versus professionally managed moderation.
"Experiment" vs. Revision: Is the group experimenting to collect input, or writing documents intending to be revisions to existing BCPs? Is a time-limited process the right approach?

Decisions and Action Items

Use Three Documents as Input: Agreed to use all three submitted drafts (Elliott's draft, Lars's draft, and Robb Sayer's draft) as input documents for the working group.
Consolidate Using EAHC as Baseline: Show of hands poll indicated support for consolidating the drafts using the "EAHC" draft as a baseline. A few dissenters expressed concerns that using a baseline would not be as beneficial as starting a new document that merges ideas from all three.
Set Up Issue Tracker: Chairs will set up an issue tracker, likely against the EAHC draft, to facilitate discussion and track progress on open issues.

Next Steps

Authors will begin working towards consolidating the drafts, focusing on resolving open issues identified in the drafts and raised during the meeting.
Chairs will establish the issue tracker.
The consolidated draft will be presented to the working group for further discussion and refinement.