wdiff rfc9945.original rfc9945.txt

Network Working Group

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Eggert, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9945 Mozilla
Obsoletes: 3683, 3934 (if approved)
bcp: 245 E. Lear, Ed.
Obsoletes: 3683, 3934 Cisco Systems
Updates: 2418, 9245 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Intended status: February 2026
Category: Best Current Practice 9 February 2026
Expires: 13 August 2026
ISSN: 2070-1721

IETF Community Moderation
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-16

Abstract

The IETF community will treat people with kindness and grace, but not
endless patience.

This memo obsoletes RFCs 3683 and 3934, and it updates RFCs 2418 and
9245 by establishing a policy for the moderation of disruptive
participation across the IETF's various public contribution channels
and discussion fora. It establishes guardrails for moderation and a
moderator team. That team will develop a set of moderation
procedures and facilitate their consistent implementation with chairs
and administrators.

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://larseggert.github.io/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/draft-
ietf-modpod-group-processes.html. Status information for this
document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
modpod-group-processes/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the mod-discuss 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/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes.

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 memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

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

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 13 August 2026.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9945.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. General Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. IETF Moderator Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Team Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Scope and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Actions That Are Out of Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Unsolicited Bulk Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Moderation Procedures and Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Consistency and Conflict Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Reinstatement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Relationship to other Other IETF functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Functions
5.1. Relation to the Ombudsteam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Relation to the IETF LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Change History of this I-D . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.1. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-11 . . . . . . . 15
A.2. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10 . . . . . . . 15
A.3. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-09 . . . . . . . 16
A.4. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-08 . . . . . . . 16
A.5. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-07 . . . . . . . 16
A.6. Since draft-ietf-modmod-group-processes-06 . . . . . . . 17
A.7. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-05 . . . . . . . 17
A.8. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-04 . . . . . . . 17
A.9. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-03 . . . . . . . 17
A.10. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-02 . . . . . . . 17
A.11. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-01 . . . . . . . 18
A.12. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-00 . . . . . . . 18
A.13. Since draft-ecahc-moderation-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B.1.
A.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B.2.
A.2. Problems with the Previous Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix C. B. Non-Normative Examples of Disruptive Behavior . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1. Introduction

This memo establishes a policy for the moderation of disruptive
participation across the IETF's various public online contribution
channels and discussion fora. It creates a moderator team to develop
procedures and to facilitate their consistent application.

This memo obsoletes and updates some prior IETF processes, summarized
here. Background information is described in more detail in
Appendix B. A.

This memo makes the following changes to existing processes:

* Obsoletes [RFC3683] as the "posting rights" (PR) action it defines
are
is replaced by processes defined herein;

* Obsoletes [RFC3934] as it replaces working group moderation
procedures;

* Obsoletes Section 3 of [RFC9245] and the second paragraph of
Section 4 of [RFC9245], as the moderator team replaces the IETF
discussion list moderation team.

* Updates Section 6.1 of [RFC2418], because the moderator team will
work together with working group chairs to moderate disruptive
behavior.

The processes described in this memo are solely applicable to IETF
activities, and not to other related organizations, such as the
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB), the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), the RFC Series Approval
Board (RSAB), or the Independent RFC Submission Stream, without their
explicit agreement. These changes take effect when the procedures
described in Section 4 have been approved by the IESG.

1.1. Terminology Note

Below,

In this document, the term "administrator" refers to the people who
are assigned by the IESG to manage a particular public participation
channel or discussion forum. This memo uses the term "forum" to
refer to any public IETF participation channel, such as a mailing
list, chat group, or discussion in a collaborative tool such as
GitHub or GitLab. For example, working group chairs are
administrators of all the public fora that their working groups use,
which typically includes mailing lists and chat groups, but might
also include collaborative tools such as GitHub or GitLab. Another example of
administrators are the The
"owners" of non-WG IETF mailing lists. lists are another example of
administrators.

1.2. General Philosophy

This policy's cornerstone of this policy is that individuals are responsible
for furthering the goals of the IETF as an organization [RFC3935] in
a manner consistent with the policy laid out in [RFC7154].

Disagreement and diverse points of view within any standards
organization are to be expected, expected and are even healthy. The IETF is an
open standards organization with a discussion-based rough consensus
process, a non-normative description of which is in [RFC7282].
Engaged, respectful discussion that is within the scope of an IETF
forum should therefore not be considered disruptive, nor should
someone be considered disruptive solely because they are outside the
rough consensus. However, when someone crosses the line into
disruptive behavior, some action must be taken in order to maintain
decorum of the community.

The moderation policy goals are as follows:

* Apply consistent, fair, and timely moderation of communication
across all public online IETF participation channels and
participation fora without regard to a participant's role in the
IETF or previous technical contributions;

* Appeals Ensure appeals are available to address disagreements about
moderation actions;

* Balance transparency against both privacy of individuals involved
and further disruption to the community;

* Allow moderation decisions to be reconsidered; and

* Provide the broadest possible latitude to all people doing
moderation, so that they have the flexibility to address a broad
range of individuals and circumstances.

Questions about the processes detailed below should be answered
through the lens of these aims.

The goal objective is explicitly *not* punishment, but to maintain an
open, welcoming, non-hostile environment in which all may participate
on an equal footing, regardless of their role in the IETF or past
technical contributions.

2. IETF Moderator Team

This memo defines a consistent approach to moderating the IETF's
various public online fora. A moderator team for the IETF will
develop and maintain guidelines for moderation and will facilitate
their consistent implementation and application as detailed below.
These changes are intended to address the issues identified in the
previous model (see Appendix B.2 A.2) and the principles described in the
introduction.

2.1. Composition

The IESG appoints and recalls moderators. The moderator team
initially consists of no fewer than five individuals. The moderator
team may expand or contract based on operational experience. In
selecting members, the IESG will take into account geographic
coverage, expected and unexpected absences, and team diversity.

Because the IESG and IAB are in the appeals chain for moderator team
decisions (see Section 4.1), the IESG must not appoint a moderator
who is serving on the IESG or IAB. Individuals serving on other
bodies to which the NomCom appoints members, such as the IETF Trust
or the LLC Board, as well as LLC staff and contractors contractors, shall also be
excluded from serving on the moderator team. If a moderator is
assuming assumes
any such role, they shall step down from the moderator team soon
after.

2.1.1. Team Diversity

Due to the global nature of the IETF, the membership of this team
should reflect a diversity of time zones and other participant
characteristics that lets it operate effectively around the clock and
throughout the year. Ideally, the moderators should be able to
respond to issues within a few hours.

Team diversity is also important to ensure any participant observing
disruptive behavior can identify a moderator they feel comfortable
contacting.

2.2. Training

The IETF is committed to providing and/or funding training for
administrators and moderators as necessary. The IESG will negotiate
any required funding or resources with IETF Administration LLC
[RFC8711].

3. Scope and Responsibilities

This policy applies to all public online IETF fora, both present and
future, including, but not limited to, mailing lists, chat groups,
and discussions in other systems that the IETF or WGs have chosen to
employ, such as GitHub repositories, wikis, or issue trackers.

Different people have different moderation responsibilities:

* *Participants* should always behave in a the manner discussed in
Section 1.2. They are also encouraged to report disruptive
behavior directed at them or someone else to an administrator of
the respective forum *and* the moderators.

* *Administrators* are primarily responsible for managing their fora
in accordance with procedures developed by the moderators and
approved by the IESG. As such, they shall address reports of
disruptive behavior in a timely fashion, apprising moderators of
reports or actions taken. Administrators may amend or rescind
actions, including those taken by members of the moderation team
*after* they have consulted with that team.

For a working group, chairs are by default the administrators.
They may delegate this responsibility in the same vein as
Section 6.4 of [RFC2418] [RFC2418], but they must always accept,
acknowledge, and keep track of complaints of disruptive behavior.
Forum administrators should perform moderation in a way that
obviates the need for moderator team involvement.

* *Moderators* are responsible for establishing procedures to
address moderation needs across all IETF fora, both present and
future. They are a resource that the community can use to address
disruptive behavior. The moderator team is responsible to the
IESG. The IESG will create or designate a forum to facilitate
discussion about moderation, moderation and refer interested parties to that
forum.

Moderators may take actions when administrators do not respond to
reports in a timely fashion. Their first action should generally
be to attempt to contact and advise the relevant administrators.
They should only take moderation actions when administrators are
not responsive, responsive or when someone disrupts multiple fora at the same
time. Moderators should generally give WG chairs the opportunity
to manage what may be difficult and contentious debates within
their groups. Within the bounds of this principle, it is left to
moderators' judgment to determine when they must act, with the
understanding that some situations may require fast responses.
Moderators must notify administrators of any actions they take.
Section 4.1 discusses the handling of disagreements.

Moderators are administrators for IETF plenary fora, currently
including the IETF discussion and last-call Last Call lists and any plenary
chat sessions. They are also administrators for any forum that
does not otherwise have an administrator.

In order to scale the function, except for plenary fora as
described above, moderators are not expected to always actively
monitor all communications. In general, they will process reports
from participants.

* *Area Directors* directors* are expected to resolve conflicts as described
here and in Section 4.1. The IESG will periodically evaluate the
performance and needs of moderators, and may appoint and recall
moderators as they deem appropriate. Apart from that, the IESG
shall refrain from the day-to-day operation and management of the
moderator team. The moderators may consult with the IESG when
needed.

3.1. Actions That Are Out of Scope

Moderator actions are only permitted for the purposes of limiting
disruptive communications in online IETF fora. All other actions are
beyond the scope of this memo. Examples of actions that are out of
scope include, but are not limited to, Datatracker account removal;
restriction of in-person, virtual, or hybrid meeting participation;
content removal or redaction; and moderation or policing of private
or non-IETF communications. While the moderator team does not
moderate non-public IETF mailing lists, the administrators of such
lists can choose to adopt some of the procedures that the moderator
team develops.

3.2. Unsolicited Bulk Messages

Unsolicited bulk messages are considered disruptive and should be
handled in a manner consistent with the IESG statement "IESG Statement on IETF Spam
Control on IETF Mailing Lists[IESG-SPAM], Lists" [IESG-SPAM] or its successors.
Administrators and moderators may take similar actions in other fora
(e.g., GitHub or Instant Messaging). instant messaging). Such actions require no
additional reporting.

4. Moderation Procedures and Transparency

Within the bounds of the policies set herein, the moderator team
shall develop and maintain procedures and criteria relating to
moderation, including the moderator team's own operating procedures.

Those procedures and criteria shall be developed with community
input, be approved by the IESG prior to going into effect, and be
made public. However, they need not be documented in the RFC series. Series.
This shall be the first task for the moderator team. Until those
procedures and criteria are established, all previous processes
referenced in Section 1 shall remain in effect.

The intent of this memo is to provide the widest possible freedom of
action to administrators and moderators, with the expectation that
the minimal actions necessary will be taken. Those who are directed
to stop disrupting a forum must do so immediately. Further
disruptions may lead to further corrective actions.

Examples of actions that could be taken include:

* Automated rate limiting rate-limiting mechanisms;

* Review and approval of submissions/messages;

* A private or public admonishment;

* Temporary or indefinite suspension of participation privileges in
one or more fora.

These are only examples, examples and are not in any way prescriptive.
Administrators and moderators are free to decide on these or other
actions.

All moderation actions that restrict participation privileges shall
be immediately reported to those against whom those actions take
effect, to relevant administrators, and to the moderator team for
their review. They shall also be periodically reported to the IESG.

Only moderation actions suspending participation privileges for
longer than fourteen (14) days must be reported to the forum to which
such an action applies, or in any event, at the request of the
suspended person. If such an action applies to more than one forum,
it should be communicated to the community in a manner decided by the
IESG.

Moderators will periodically provide an aggregate report to the
community on actions taken under this policy.

4.1. Consistency and Conflict Resolution

Administrators and moderators shall act in a manner consistent with
this memo and the guidelines approved by the IESG. In cases of
disagreement over a moderation decision, anyone may take the matter
up with the responsible Area Director area director for resolution, or with the
IETF chair Chair if a responsible Area Director area director cannot be determined or is
not assigned. If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area
Director, area
director, that person may then appeal to the IESG, IESG and subsequently to
the IAB using the processes stated in Sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.4 of
[RFC2026].

4.2. Reinstatement

People and circumstances change. Individuals whose participation
privileges have been indefinitely suspended from a forum may request
reinstatement. Requests for reinstatement may be made no earlier
than a year after the initial decision, decision and then only annually
afterward.

Any such request must be directed to the entity who made the decision
(e.g., moderator team, working group chairs, etc.) or their
successors. That party may at their discretion reinstate someone,
conditionally or unconditionally.

To avoid denial-of-service attacks on IETF processes, decisions to
not reinstate someone's participation privileges may not be appealed.
Any reinstatement is a grace and not a right.

A suspension of participation privileges imposed prior to this
process shall be reconsidered only in accordance with the processes
in place at the time of the suspension, even if the corresponding RFC
has been formally obsoleted.

5. Relationship to other Other IETF functions Functions

5.1. Relation to the Ombudsteam

Administrators and moderators shall complement the efforts of the
IETF ombudsteam Ombudsteam [OT], whose focus on anti-harassment and operation
shall remain unchanged. Administrators and moderators should always
report suspected harassment. They should nonetheless take any
necessary actions regarding disruptive behavior.

5.2. Relation to the IETF LLC

The Board of Directors of the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) has
fiduciary duty for the overall organization, which includes the duty
to protect the organization from serious legal risk that may arise
from the behavior of IETF participants.

This protection may include the need for the IETF LLC to take
emergency moderation actions. These emergency actions are expected
to be taken only when the IETF LLC has received legal advice that
such action is necessary, necessary and therefore will be extremely rare in
frequency. Some examples of where this might be necessary are:

* Someone making a credible threat of harm to other IETF
participants.

* Someone using IETF mailing lists and/or websites to share content
where publishing that content on IETF lists and/or websites brings
serious legal risk to the IETF.

* Someone making a credible threat of legal action where any form of
interaction with them on IETF mailing lists may have serious legal
consequences for the IETF.

If any such action is taken, the IETF LLC should, except where
limited by legal advice to the contrary, inform the IESG as soon as
possible, providing full details of the subject of the action, nature
of the action, reason for the action action, and the expected duration. The
IETF LLC should also inform the moderator team and IETF community,
except where it receives legal advice to the contrary.

As such an action would be taken by the IETF LLC in order to protect
the IETF according to its fiduciary duty, then it cannot allow that
to be overridden by a decision of the moderator team or the IESG.
The subject of any such action may request a review by the IETF LLC
board,
Board, as documented in Section 4.7 of [RFC8711].

Any such action taken by the IETF LLC under this section of this
policy is not subject to the rest of this policy.

6. Security Considerations

The usual security considerations [RFC3552] do not apply to this
memo.

There is the potential abuse of the moderation procedures by
moderators, working group chairs, and potentially others that could
lead to censorship of legitimate participation. This potential risk
is mitigated in eight ways:

1. Section 4 requires the moderator team to first establish
procedures that are intended to apply uniformly across the IETF.

2. Section 1.2 explicitly states that viewpoints outside the rough
consensus are not in and of themselves disruptive.

3. Section 4 provides transparency by requiring that moderation
actions that restrict participation privileges be immediately
reported to the affected person and to the moderation team, and
periodically reported to the IESG.

4. That same section Section 4 also requires that the community be informed in the
case of suspensions lasting longer than 14 days.

5. Section 4.1 lays out an appeals process in the case of
disagreements.

6. If moderators find that the procedures themselves are leading to
inappropriate moderation, Section 4 allows them to update those
procedures in consultation with the community, community and with the
approval of the IESG.

7. If IETF participants believe that either the IESG or the IAB are
not performing their respective oversight functions as described
in this document, they may comment to the NomCom [BCP10] or the
community at large.

8. Finally, if it appears that these processes are not functioning
properly, the policies stated in this memo may be amended. They
are not set in stone.

Moderation actions are intended to limit the likelihood of disruptive
behavior by a few IETF participants from discouraging that may discourage participation
by other IETF participants.

7. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions are requested. actions.

8. Acknowledgments

This memo is based on two individual Internet-Drafts, draft-ecahc-
moderation (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ecahc-moderation/)
authored by Lars Eggert, Alissa Cooper, Jari Arkko, Russ Housley Housley, and
Brian E. Carpenter, and draft-lear-bcp83-replacement
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lear-bcp83-replacement/)
authored by Eliot Lear, Robert Wilton, Bron Gondwana Gondwana, and John
R. Levine. Robert Sayre authored draft-sayre-modpod-excellent
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sayre-modpod-excellent/),
which also originated ideas reflected in this work. Pete Resnick
provided the basis for how the moderators interact with list/forum
leadership.

These individuals contributed additional improvements:

* Alissa Cooper

* Brian Carpenter

* Chris Box

* Colin Perkins

* David Schinazi

* Eric Rescorla

* Jay Daley

* Joel Halpern

* John Klensin

* John Scudder

* Martin Thomson

* Melinda Shore

* Michael Richardson

* Nick Hilliard

* Pete Resnick

* Rich Salz

* Robert Sayre

* Russ Housley

* Sean Turner

* Simon Josefsson

* Stephen Farrell

* Ted Lemon

* Tim Bray

N.B., acknowledgment should not be taken as endorsement by the
individuals named above.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[BCP10] Best Current Practice 10,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp10>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood,
Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection,
Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF
Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8713>.

Duke, M., "Nominating Committee Eligibility", BCP 10,
RFC 9389, DOI 10.17487/RFC9389, April 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9389>.

[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.

[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
September 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.

[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3935>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.

[RFC7154] Moonesamy, S., Ed., "IETF Guidelines for Conduct", BCP 54,
RFC 7154, DOI 10.17487/RFC7154, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7154>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7154>.

[RFC7776] Resnick, P. and A. Farrel, "IETF Anti-Harassment
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 7776, DOI 10.17487/RFC7776, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7776>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776>.

[RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8711>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.

9.2. Informative References

[AHP] IESG, "IETF Anti-Harassment Policy", 3 November 2013,
<https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/anti-
harassment-policy/>.

[DP] IESG, "IESG Statement on Disruptive Posting", 16 17 February
2006, <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/
disruptive-posting/>.

[IESG-SPAM]
IESG, "IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing
Lists", 18 14 April 2008, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
statement-iesg-iesg-statement-on-spam-control-on-ietf-
mailing-lists-20080414/>.

[MODML] IESG, "IESG Guidance on the Moderation of IETF Working
Group Mailing Lists", 29 August 2000,
<https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/
mailing-lists-moderation/>.

[OT] "Ombudsteam", <https://www.ietf.org/contact/ombudsteam/>.

[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3552>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.

[RFC3683] Rose, M., "A Practice for Revoking Posting Rights to IETF
Mailing Lists", BCP 83, RFC 3683, DOI 10.17487/RFC3683,
March 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3683>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3683>.

[RFC3934] Wasserman, M., "Updates to RFC 2418 Regarding the
Management of IETF Mailing Lists", BCP 25, RFC 3934,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3934, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3934>.

[RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF",
RFC 7282, DOI 10.17487/RFC7282, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7282>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7282>.

[RFC9245] Eggert, L. and S. Harris, "IETF Discussion List Charter",
BCP 45, RFC 9245, DOI 10.17487/RFC9245, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9245>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9245>.

Appendix A. Change History of this I-D

| RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication.

A.1. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-11

* clarify when changes take effect (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/238/)

* Refine security considerations (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/239)

* Multi group and moderator reversal (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/257/files)

* Last(?) bits from 2nd last call (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/258)

A.2. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10

* Many editorial suggestions received during WGLC.

* remove attendee mailing lists from moderator primary
responsibility (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-
group-processes/pull/181)

* Correct reference to appeals process.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/149) Also this. (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-
modpod-group-processes/pull/230)
* Clarify fora that are out of scope.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/197) Incl. attendees' lists. (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/181) Also this.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/235)

* Clarify WG chairs are default admins but can delegate.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/220)

* Mod team size guidance. (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-
modpod-group-processes/pull/231)

* Chair immediately notify mods and affected parties.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/229)

* Add all of the available mitigations to risks of censorship.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/232)

* Clarify AD responsibilities. (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-
ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/234)

A.3. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-09

* Try to find another happy medium on power of moderators
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/147)

A.4. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-08

* Address timeliness and exisgent circumstances
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
issues/142)

* Make clear that moderators should use their judgment on timing
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/143)

A.5. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-07

* Pete Resnick issues and similar (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/issues/134)
* Includes changes to abstract, intro, tweaks to make relationship
between admins/WG chairs clearer; makes roles clearer, moderation
team → moderator team. (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-
modpod-group-processes/pull/135)

A.6. Since draft-ietf-modmod-group-processes-06

* Normalize handling of moderation across all fora
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/129)

* Obsolete RFC 3934, explicit admin responsibility
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/132)

A.7. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-05

* New attempt to address moderation/WG interactions
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/126)

A.8. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-04

* Use plain English instead of BCP 14 language
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/120)

A.9. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-03

* Non-normative Examples of Disruptive Behavior
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/121)

A.10. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-02

* Say which RFCs this obsoletes and updates.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/105)

* Address issue 113 (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-
modpod-group-processes/pull/116)

* Rewrite philosophy (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-
modpod-group-processes/pull/103)

* Reinstatement (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-
group-processes/pull/107)
* Content removal is not moderation. (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/109)

A.11. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-01

* Update "Relation to the IETF LLC". (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/92)

* Point to relevant IRTF material. (https://github.com/larseggert/
draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/pull/97)

* Add some text to explain the role of moderators.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/100)

A.12. Since draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-00

* Spelling fix (https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-
group-processes/pull/80)

* Initial attempt to balance what the moderator defines and what
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/75)

* Scope and relationship between WG chairs and moderators
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/76)

* Fix wording, spelling and capitalization.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/88)

* Editorial changes to acknowledgments.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/87)

A.13. Since draft-ecahc-moderation-01

* Content taken from draft-ecahc-moderation-01
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ecahc-moderation/01/).
Updated editors. Acknowledge authors of original pre-WG I-Ds.
(https://github.com/larseggert/draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes/
pull/65)

Appendix B. Motivation

Section 1 summarized summarizes the process changes introduced by this memo.
This appendix discusses the background that led to them.

B.1.

A.1. Background

The IETF community has defined general guidelines for personal
interactions in the IETF [RFC7154], and the [RFC7154]. The IESG has defined an anti-
harassment policy for the IETF [AHP] for which the IETF community has
defined anti-harassment procedures [RFC7776], empowering an
ombudsteam
Ombudsteam [OT] to take necessary action.

Dealing with _disruptive_ behavior, however, is not part of the role
of the ombudsteam. Ombudsteam. [RFC2418] tasks the chairs of each IETF working
group with moderating their group's in-person meetings while
[RFC3934] provided provides chairs a procedure to help manage mailing lists.
An IESG statement [MODML] described describes additional guidance to working
group chairs about how — -- but not when — -- to moderate their lists.

For IETF mailing lists not associated with a working group, another
IESG statement [DP] clarifies that the IESG tasks list administrators
with moderation. And the IETF list for general discussions has,
mostly for historic reasons, a team of moderators that are not list
administrators and operate by a different set of processes [RFC9245].

Note that the term "moderation" can refer both to _preemptive_
moderation, where administrators review attempted participation
before it occurs (such as reviewing messages to a mailing list), and
_reactive_ moderation, where administrators intervene after
disruptive participation has occurred. The Historically, the IETF historically has
mainly practiced reactive moderation, with a spectrum from gentle
reminders on- and off-list, all the way to suspension of posting
rights and other ways of participating or communicating. It is up to
the moderators and administrators to decide which mix of preemptive
and reactive moderation to employ as part of their procedures.

In addition, [RFC3683] defines a process for revoking an individual's
posting rights to IETF mailing lists following a community last-call Last Call
of a "posting rights" action (PR-action) proposed by the IESG, often
in response to complaints from the community.

Experience and community input suggests that an evolution of the
existing processes is necessary.

B.2.

A.2. Problems with the Previous Approach

The previous approach to moderation of disruptive participation
through chairs, list administrators, and moderator teams, combined
with the IESG-led process of PR-actions, has proven to be less than
ideal:

* The IETF community has not been able to agree on a common
definition of disruptive behavior. Therefore, chairs and list
administrators apply individually different criteria when making
decisions, and participants have different expectations for when
PR-actions are warranted.

* The moderation process that chairs and list administrators need to
follow [RFC3934] is slow and cumbersome, which makes it ill-suited
to situations that escalate quickly. It also assumes that the
originator of disruptive behavior is a misguided participant who
can be reasoned with and who will change their ways.

* Chairs and list administrators may only enact moderation actions
for their single list, which is ill-suited when a pattern of
disruptive behavior spans multiple lists. Also, chairs and list
administrators may not be fully aware of disruptive behavior that
spans multiple lists, due to not being subscribed to some of them.

* PR-actions, which can address disruptive behavior across several
lists, are cumbersome and cumbersome, slow, and inconsistent. This has led to a
situation where PR-actions are rarely used, and when they are
used, they are perceived as very heavy-handed.

* For a given mailing list, participants may not feel comfortable
reporting disruptive behavior to a chair or list administrator,
for various reasons. For mailing lists not associated with
working groups, list administrators are not even publicly
identified - -- they can only be contacted through an anonymous
alias address. This exacerbates the problem, because participants
may not be comfortable reporting disruptive behavior to an
anonymous party.

* The IETF offers participation not only through in-person meetings
and mailing lists, which are the two channels of participation for
which moderation processes are currently defined. IETF business
also happens in chat groups, remote meeting participation systems,
virtual meetings, wikis, GitHub repositories, and more. How
disruptive behavior is moderated in these fora is currently
undefined.

Appendix C. B. Non-Normative Examples of Disruptive Behavior

The list below describes some types of disruptive behavior, but it is
non-exhaustive.

* Discussion of subjects unrelated to a forum's charter or scope;

* Uncivil commentary, regardless of the general subject;

* Messages announcing conferences, events, or activities that are
not sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF, unless
posted with prior approval of list administrators;

* Repeatedly arguing counter to a WG charter that has been approved
by the IESG; and

* "Sealioning", where a participant makes incessant requests for
evidence or data, even while remaining superficially polite.

These items are examples. Moderators and administrators may take
moderation actions for many other cases.

The moderator team's task consists of subjective judgment calls.
Behaviors not listed here might require moderation, and it is not
possible to write a complete list of all such behaviors.

Authors' Addresses

Lars Eggert (editor)
Mozilla
Stenbergintie 12 B
FI-02700 Kauniainen
Finland
Email: lars@eggert.org
URI: <https://eggert.org/> https://eggert.org/

Eliot Lear (editor)
Cisco Systems
Richtistrasse 7
CH-8304 Wallisellen
Switzerland
Phone: +41 44 878 9200
Email: lear@lear.ch