On January 27, 2000, the IESG received a complaint from "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> concerning the management of the namedroppers mailing list. This note is a response to that complaint. Background: Mr. Bernstein has voiced complaints about management of the namedroppers mailing list in the past, dating back to at least December, 1998. At that time the IESG discussed the issues being raised concerning the moderation of the namedroppers mailing list. That discussion reaffirmed previous IESG discussions that moderation of WG mailing list was a useful and appropriate tool in limited circumstances and that moderation of namedroppers was appropriate. Problems with moderation can be dealt with through normal IETF processes. The Internet Area Directors received a formal compliant on January 15, 2000. The ADs responded to the complaint on January 26 (attached below). Mr. Bernstein's January 27th complaint to the IESG cites dissatisfaction with the AD response. Mr. Bernstein's basic complaint is: > In short, to use the language of RFC 2026 section 6.5.1: Mismanagement > of the namedroppers mailing list is preventing the IETF DNSEXT working > group from adequately considering the views of its participants, and is > placing the quality and integrity of the working group's decisions in > jeopardy. The IESG has reviewed the facts at its disposal concerning this complaint and concludes that the overall complaint lacks merit. Specifically, the IESG reaffirms that the moderating of mailing lists is a useful and appropriate WG tool, and the IESG supports such moderations in some circumstances. In the specific case of namedroppers, a moderated mailing list, the IESG does not find the the moderation policy to be inappropriate. Nor does the IESG find that the specific incidents cited taken as a whole constitute mismanagment of the mailing list as indicated. A more detailed description of the IESG's policy with regards to moderated mailing lists can be found at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt. Mr. Bernstein also asks: > I also demand that the IESG immediately answer the following specific > factual questions: > (1) Before my December 1998 complaint, had the IESG already > considered and approved Bush's methods of controlling the > namedroppers mailing list? The IESG had talked about moderated lists prior to the 1998 complaint, but does not recall if namedroppers was specifically discussed prior to the 1998 complaint. Moderation of namedroppers was discussed by the IESG in 1998. > (2) Before my December 1999 complaint, had the IESG already > considered and approved Bush's methods of controlling the > namedroppers mailing list? Yes. > (3) If the answer to #1 or #2 is yes: Why did the IESG not say so in > response to my complaint? The IESG should have responded to your 1998 complaint. > (4) If the answer to #1 or #2 is yes: Exactly what methods did the > IESG approve, and when? It is OK to moderate in order to reject SPAM & other postings unrelated to WG. Posters should be notified whenever a posting is rejected (unless obvious SPAM). > (5) If the answer to #1 or #2 is yes: What steps did the IESG take to > subject its action to public review? The IESG is unable to subject every one of its decisions to public review. In this case, it was felt that moderation of mailing lists in limited circumstances was consistent with standard IETF processes. Fred Baker IETF Chair =========================== From: Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy Bush), Olafur Gudmundsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:01:00 -0500 Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement On January 15, 2000, the Internet ADs received a complaint from D. J. Bernstein entitled "namedroppers mismanagement". This note is our response. The jist of the complaint was summarized by Mr. Bernstein as: > In short, to use the language of RFC 2026 section 6.5.1: Mismanagement > of the namedroppers mailing list is preventing the IETF DNS working > groups from adequately considering the views of their participants, and > is placing the quality and integrity of the working group's decisions in > jeopardy. The Internet ADs do not agree with this assertion. In particular: 1) The Internet ADs are aware that the mailing list is moderated and support the chairs efforts in keeping WG activities focussed on WG chartered deliverables. 2) The specific 7 incidents cited include: - 3 that occurred more than a year ago, [not considered due to statue of limitations considerations] - 1 involving lack of timely approval of a posting, [inevitable with a moderated list] - 1 involving what was clearly a problem with the mailing list software [a message posted at the same time by one of the ADs was also caught in the same timewarp] - 1 involving a message that was rejected as off-topic (with a note suggesting a different mailing list) - 1 involving a message that was forwarded to dnsop, rather than being posted to namedroppers, without the author being told this was being done. We do not see any evidence that one of the WG chairs, Randy Bush's moderating activities "actively and deliberately bias the mailing list discussions". (As a side note, namedroppers is actually co-moderated by Randy Bush and Mark Kosters.) However, we have sent a reminder to the chairs/moderators that all rejected postings (including messages forwarded to a more appropriate list instead) should result in an explanatory note being sent to the author. Finally, in your note: > P.S. Is there an email address for the Internet Society Board of > Trustees? I have the individual addresses of the current members but > would prefer to use a group address if one exists. We feel compelled to point out that in the event that further appeals are deemed necessary, the process to follow is outlined in RFC 2026. Specifically, the next place to appeal this response is the IESG, followed by (if necessary) the IAB. Note that appeal to the ISOC is specifically mentioned in section 6.5.3 of 2026. Thomas & Erik
