Session Date/Time: 07 Nov 2025 16:30

MODPOD

Summary

The MODPOD working group met to discuss the document's status following Working Group Last Call and Area Director (AD) review. The primary focus was on addressing the AD's comments and making minor editorial adjustments to prepare the document for IETF Last Call. A specific discussion occurred regarding the consistent use of "processes" versus "procedures," which led to a plan for the chairs/editors to perform a final review for contextual clarity. The meeting concluded with appreciation for the chairs' efforts in managing a challenging working group environment.

Key Discussion Points

Acknowledgements: Chairs acknowledged Elliot Lear and Lars Eckert for their significant work on the mailing list and document.
Meeting Scope: The discussion was limited to addressing post-Working Group Last Call comments and AD review, explicitly not re-litigating previously discussed issues.
Document Changes Post-WG Last Call:
- Editorial Changes (John Clensen's Review):
  - Clarification on rescinding actions: Text was updated to suggest engaging directly with the person(s) who performed the original action.
  - Rewording for clarity of moderation process: Minor rewording for improved phrasing without semantic change.
  - Consistency of "processes" vs. "procedures": An initial change was made to standardize on "processes."
  - Rewording "requirements" or "restrictions": Minor rewording without semantic change.
  - Removal of redundant statement in appendix: A non-normative, redundant statement was removed.
- AD (Roman) Review:
  - Reference to RFC 2418 (section 6.4): Added a reference to section 6.4 of RFC 2418 regarding the delegation of moderation responsibilities to specific individuals, noting it is "in the vein of" rather than a direct analogy.
  - Removal of IRTF section: The IRTF section was removed at the AD's suggestion, following "Housley's Law" (removing every unnecessary word).
  - Acknowledgements Caveat: At John Scudder's request, a caveat was added to the acknowledgements section stating that listing does not necessarily imply support for the work.
Discussion on "Processes" vs. "Procedures":
- Pete Resnick raised concern about the use of "processes," suggesting "procedures" might be more appropriate to avoid connotations of setting IETF policy, which he felt could be contentious. He noted that "process" sounds like IETF policy, while "procedure" sounds like something an assigned group would do.
- Roman (AD) expressed a preference for minimal changes, given the successful Working Group Last Call and the consensus building required to reach that point. He emphasized not wanting to "fuss with" the text.
- John Scudder suggested that if a change were to be made, it should happen before IETF Last Call to pre-empt potential "out of the woodwork" comments.
- A sense of those present was taken:
  - A few individuals (Pete, John) felt there was a meaningful distinction between the terms in this context.
  - About half a dozen felt there was no material distinction.
- Pete clarified his concern was that the BCP (Best Current Practice) is about setting a process, but what the moderation team produces are guidelines/procedures, not a process itself.
- Elliot Lear (chair) proposed that the editors (Elliot and Lars) would re-read the document with this specific distinction in mind, focusing on where "processes" refers to the moderation team's guidelines, and potentially revert those specific instances to "procedures." They would then inform the AD. Roman appreciated this approach, clarifying he had misunderstood the issue as re-opening consensus rather than addressing AD review-related editorial points.
IETF Last Call Preparation: Roman stated he would check for the updated document, adjudicate any remaining AD feedback, and then send it for IETF Last Call. He also indicated he would ensure the appropriate Last Call administrators are aware.
Appreciation for Moderation Teams: Roman expressed deep appreciation for the last call moderation team and the IETF discussion mailing list team, acknowledging their continued "white-knuckle" efforts until the new moderation framework is rolled out.
Thanks to Chairs: Several participants, including Lisa and Roman, thanked the chairs for their work in facilitating the community through a very difficult conversation, especially regarding the working group mailing list challenges.

Decisions and Action Items

Action Item: Elliot Lear and Lars Eckert (editors/chairs) will conduct a targeted review of the document to distinguish between "processes" (for the overall BCP status) and "procedures" (for specific moderator team guidelines). They will make editorial adjustments as deemed appropriate for contextual clarity and then notify Roman (AD).
Action Item: Roman (AD) will await the final version from the chairs, adjudicate any remaining AD feedback, and then initiate the IETF Last Call process for the document.

Next Steps

The chairs/editors will finalize editorial adjustments related to "processes" vs. "procedures."
The document will proceed to IETF Last Call once the AD has cleared it.