Session Date/Time: 19 Mar 2025 02:30

modpod

Summary

This meeting focused on discussing the draft "IETF modpod group processes" and gathering feedback from the community. Key areas of discussion included the goals of moderation, the composition and responsibilities of the moderator team, the scope of moderation actions (especially concerning working groups and in-person meetings), the handling of past moderation actions, and potential mechanisms for ensuring consistency and fairness. A consensus call was done to see whether the group supports the creation of a moderation team appointed by the IESG.

Key Discussion Points

Rationale Appendix: Discussion on the appendix containing the rationale for the working group, and whether it should be kept, trimmed, or removed.
Goals for Moderation: Agreement on the goals for moderation, including consistency, fairness, transparency, and allowing moderators to reconsider decisions.
Moderator Team Composition: Debate on the minimum number of moderators (at least five) and diversity considerations, as well as restrictions on serving as a moderator for NOMCOM appointed positions, LLC staff, or contractors.
Scope of Moderation: Extensive discussion on the scope of the moderator team's responsibilities, particularly regarding working groups (collaboration with chairs) and in-person meetings. Varied opinions on whether the moderator team should have the authority to moderate in-person meetings.
Reporting to the IESG: Discussion on the frequency and type of moderation actions that need to be reported to the IESG, aiming to balance transparency and avoid excessive workload.
Fairness: Defining what is meant by fairness was raised as a concern.
Logging: Importance of logging all moderation actions for tracking and accountability.
Data Retention: Discussion on data retention policies for moderation logs, with suggestions of a three-year retention period.
Reinstatement: Concerns about the non-appealable nature of denied reinstatement requests.
Past Moderation Actions: How to handle existing PR actions after the publication of the RFC, whether to transition them to the new process or maintain the old procedures.
"Sea Lioning": Definition of the trolling tactic "sea lioning" and whether that falls within the scope of the working group to identify as disruptive behaviour.
Appointment and Removal of Moderators: Discussion on how moderators are appointed and removed.

Decisions and Action Items

ACTION: Lars and Elliot to work on incorporating feedback on moderator/chair collaboration and syncing into the document.
ACTION: Pete to provide a PR to update the Ombuds team section of the document.
ACTION: The IESG to determine their preferred method for handling pre-existing moderation actions.
ACTION: Evaluate existing PR actions and decide on a method to handle them in the new process.
DECISION: The group supports the creation of a moderation team appointed by the IESG.

Next Steps

Incorporate feedback from the meeting into the next revision of the draft.
Continue discussion on the mailing list, especially regarding the scope of in-person moderation.
Address open issues and PRs on GitHub.
Consider the IRTF's perspective on moderation processes.