Subject: [domainrep] WG Management

From: Chris Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:56:12 -0500

Hi all,

Dave, Pete (our AD) and I have been discussing a number of
things to help make the Repute WG can be productive.

As many of you are aware, the topic being covered by the
working group is inherently difficult and has a long history of
difficult participant behavior in two previous working groups
and other IETF-related venues.

This has tended to reduce participation by otherwise-valuable
representatives of the community.  I know that I am one of
those who have been reluctant to participate in the past on
these topics for that very reason.

IETF process and culture is based on open participation.
Anyone can participate in any working group.  But this also
means that participants must strive to be constructive.

This obviously means maintaining a professional demeanor, but
it also means staying within scope.  Failure in either produces
a distracted and likely hostile environment.  Which winds up
meaning that the WG discourages participation and fails to
move forward.

Anyone can have a bad day and fail in one way or the other.

Patterns of failure are another matter, and is where we,
as WG management, must act.

Some working groups are managed loosely because they're on
relatively non-controversial subject matter, however the Repute
Working Group is not one of those.

This message is being sent to ensure that participants are aware
of the rules governing participation and enforcement procedures.

Here is the formal IETF documentation for procedures to enforce
acceptable participation:

1.   RFC 2418:  IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures

 > 3.3 Session Management ... To facilitate making forward
 > progress, a Working Group Chair may wish to decide to reject
 > or defer the input from a member, based upon the following
 > criteria:
 >
 > Old The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved
 > and is redundant with information previously available;
 >
 > Minor The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already
 > been resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the
 > existing decision;
 >
 > Timing The input pertains to a topic that the working group
 > has not yet opened for discussion; or
 >
 > Scope The input is outside of the scope of the working group
 > charter.

2.  RFC 3934 as it amends RFC 2418 section 3.2:

 > As in face-to-face sessions, occasionally one or more
 > individuals may engage in behavior on a mailing list that, in
 > the opinion of the WG chair, is disruptive to the WG process.
 > Unless the disruptive behavior is severe enough that it must be
 > stopped immediately, the WG chair should attempt to discourage
 > the disruptive behavior by communicating directly with the
 > offending individual.  If the behavior persists, the WG chair
 > should send at least one public warning on the WG mailing list.
 > As a last resort and typically after one or more explicit
 > warnings and consultation with the responsible Area Director,
 > the WG chair may suspend the mailing list posting privileges of
 > the disruptive individual for a period of not more than 30 days...

THEREFORE:

Dave and I will be actively managing the Repute Working Group
with respect to any egregious behavior or any tendency towards
participation that qualifies under the criteria listed under
RFC 2418, Section 3.2 (as amended) or Section 3.3, and will
use the enforcement procedures defined in RFC 3934 if necessary.