Re: Notice of moderator intervention

Moderators should conduct moderation when they see fit within both the rules and spirit of the IETF.

That said, this specific instance has more bark than bite. To be fair, that’s the right call when moderating something that’s pretty benign and far from inflammatory. It’s more likely that the IETF moderation team is attempting to portray fairness in a performative way, like a theater.

Further, this recent moderation action also makes clear the selective enforcement practices in place by the IETF moderation team.  There have been several direct, and indirect, boolean and derogatory statements in the past 6 months wherein only one of which received any kind of moderator action thereupon [1].  Further, contributors with the largest experience and publicly validated contributions to the Security Movement are being banned simply for bringing evidence backed arguments forward under the guise of “can’t include derivative works language” as if said language being included would somehow disrupt the IETF in some way.

This is not so surprising given the feigned and deliberate incompetency that has been on full display while the IETF has quietly adopted a poor security posture.

While it may be convenient for IETF, and its moderators, to move the goal post, the topic, and the attention to other topics; the future of the IETF’s credibility rests upon a proper review and reversal of recent events (from bans, to adoptions of poor non hybrid crypto, and finally, proper moderator evaluation, across a number of selectors, and training).

The era of running things rag tag, humming about, and declaring consensus has been reached when it’s continually the opposite (both with the hybrid mlkem and mldsa issues currently on topic), has to come to an end. This isn’t some little group on a little internet, so the IETF can no longer operate like its run by little people.

That said, I truly believe everyone here, including the moderators, are big people and will face this head on, and maturely, for the sake of the future and the reputation of the IETF.

Best,
Andrew

[1] For example, derogatory and slanderous comments directed toward several participants in name from M.R. on or about November, 2025, continued for considerable time before action was taken. There are many other examples on the archives.


> On May 7, 2026, at 8:35 AM, Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> However, there is significant value in heading off potential problems before they rise to the level of prompting complaints. The moderators chose to send an early, polite, off-list, warning. 

> On 5/7/2026 11:19 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>>> which the Moderators team considers uncivil commentary [4] for belittling a list participant....
>> I don't find Rich's comment and metaphor particularly uncivil.  I
>> question the judgement of the moderators.