Re: List moderator action

Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> Mon, 04 May 2026 09:39:24 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Chris Box <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 at 10:23, Simon Josefsson <simon=
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The same advice could be given to the policy makers and moderators of
>> this list.  What is the goal of banning DJB from making these posts?
>>
>
> In this case, my goal is to avoid continued disruptive derivative rights
> claims, as defined by IESG Statement on Clarifying Derivative Works Rights
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-derivative-works-rights/>.
> If DJB posts to the list without such a notice then it would be allowed
> through, unless of course a different community-defined line is crossed.
>
>
>> I don't understand what the moderators hope to achieve here.  It seems
>
> weird that the moderator action does not even cite what policy grants
>> them the authority to make their decision.
>>
>
> It's my fault for not being clear about that when acting. Let me try to
> remedy that now.
>
> RFC 3934 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934.html> gives WG chairs the
> ability to restrict posting for 30 days following disruption and warnings.
> IESG Statement on Disruptive Posting
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-statement-on-disruptive-posting-20060217/>
> extends
> the RFC3934 power to administrators of non-WG lists.
> RFC 9245 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9245.html> grants the
> moderators administrative authority over the [email protected] list.
> IESG Statement on Clarifying Derivative Works Rights
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-derivative-works-rights/>
> defines
> which derivative rights claims are disruptive.
>
> I hope that makes it clear?

Thanks for clarifying, Chris.  Maybe something like that could be added
to future decisions?

Yes, it does make it clear to me that you are not acting based on any
moderation process that has been subject to IETF-wide consensus, but
instead act based on an IESG-driven agenda that appears to be about
personal difference to silence opposition to non-hybrid/NIST PQ crypto.

Please think again if banning people from participating in the
standardization process based on the above rationale is a net positive
for the IETF and wider Internet community.

/Simon
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 1.2 KB)