Internet-Draft Be Excellent To Each Other November 2024
Sayre Expires 10 May 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
MODeration PrOceDures
Internet-Draft:
draft-sayre-modpod-excellent-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Author:
R. Sayre

Be Excellent To Each Other

Abstract

The greatest and least heinous of all golden rules.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://sayrer.github.io/be_excellent/draft-sayre-modpod-excellent.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sayre-modpod-excellent/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the MODeration PrOceDures Working Group mailing list (mailto:mod-discuss@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mod-discuss/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mod-discuss/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/sayrer/be_excellent.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 May 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

There is some informal text in this document, but the topic is serious. If you find yourself about to send a message you might regret, consult this text first.

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. Policy

Be Excellent To Each Other. For an extensive explanation, refer to [EXCELLENT].

4. Rules

All day counts below are cumulative, and any of these actions may be appealed.

4.1. 0-12 days

Anyone appointed to moderate an IETF mailing list (such as a WG chair, or an IETF list moderator) can prevent posting from anyone for twelve days, either through outright blocking or screening, with no transparency aside from informing the person being moderated. The person appointed to moderate the list can send a message along the lines of "we've asked some people to take a break". Everyone following closely will know anyway.

Hopefully, this action will be used only for a day or two. This capability is good, because there's no shame. It is not to be used in "Last Call" situations, as those have a time limit as well. Twelve days might seem like a long time, but the policy is intended to cover all times of year.

Anyone can start a blog, or CC an email to a non-IETF list. There are many venues not subject to IETF moderation.

It may be that the IETF audience's attention is being abused through IETF infrastructure, so that's why this action exists.

4.2. 12-24 days

The moderator or WG chair must inform an Area Director or the IETF Chair, as appropriate, and again inform the participant.

4.3. 24-36 days

If the problem persists this long, it is in BCP 83 or IETF Ombudsman territory (ED: the WG will have newer refs here), which quite likely might have started in the previous steps. At this point, it must be publicly pointed out.

5. Hypocrisy

The hazard in writing any document of this sort is that it seems to presume the authors and supporters are perfect. They are not.

Everyone makes mistakes. The IETF will treat people with kindness and grace, but not endless patience.

This document describes a two-way street. Moderators must also maintain excellence.

6. Security Considerations

One problem with failing to be excellent to each other is that people wander off. Then, documents don't get the security review they require.

7. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

8.2. Informative References

[EXCELLENT]
"Keanu Reeves & Alex Winter explain: "Be excellent to each other" - 'Bill & Ted 3' (08/20)", n.d., <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv0i8YasmEM>.

Author's Address

Robert Sayre