[arch-d] iesg: Re: Updates on IAB mailing lists

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Mon, 20 April 2020 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0978D3A0C23; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.904
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WH-ERD8iwZaj; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C8823A0105; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de []) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8C1548048; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 20:44:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 1836F440055; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 20:44:56 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 20:44:56 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Cc: "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200420184456.GG5351@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/70v9ZJxNBhi8h039z6Nnjr4-5Lo>
Subject: [arch-d] iesg: Re: Updates on IAB mailing lists
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:45:11 -0000

Dear IESG [Cc'in IETF]

I would hereby like IESG to reconfirm that architecture-discuss@ietf.org
is an IETF mailing list subject to IETF mailing list rules and its
"about" statement and not subject to intended strict IAB controlled
communications policies for IAB mailing lists as proposed by Tommy.

If this is not yet the case, then please make sure that it is in the
future because the proposed IAB policies do neither match the mailing
lists name, the actual discussion (mostly absent IAB involvement), nor the 
intended discussion on it (as on mailman).

See below for more detailled justification.

Dear Tommy, *:

Wrt to your intention to put IAB mailing lists under the following proposed policies:

> Inappropriate postings consist of: spam and bulk e-mail;
> unprofessional commentary, regardless of subject;


> announcements of conferences or activities that are not sponsored
> or endorsed by the Internet Society, the IETF, or the IAB


> and discussion of subjects unrelated to IAB policy,
> programs, activities, or technical concerns"

NOK for list that go beyond those points. architecture-discuss@ietf.org
clear goes beyond those points.

a) I read this as a long-winding workaround to prohibit
   the IETF community to self-organize without official leadership
   support in inofficial side meetings using the IETF mailing list

   I suspect these rules have especially been crafted to prohibit me to
   invite community members interested in architecture discussion around
   New IP to inofficial side meetings via the archiecture-discuss@ietf.org
   mailing list in the future, as i did in the past for IETF106 and IETF107.

   AFAIK, it is not only common practice, but quite desirable
   for the community to use IETF/IRTF mailing lists to self-organize
   into whatever form of inoffical side meeting is appropriate on
   topics of intererst to that mailing list. Bar BOFs not being easy
   in times of corona.  Likewise i think that notifications about events
   related to a mailing lists topic are quite common. The notion that
   only official sponsored events can be brought up sounds quite strange
   to me and quite contrary to the open nature of the IETF/IRTF.

b) If IAB wants to enforce such restrictive policies for communications
   on an intentional open mailing list such as architecture-discuss@ietf.org,
   then this adds severely to my concerns about how IAB operates. I think 
   it is unbecoming for an ISOC entity.

   To me, architecture-discuss@iab.org is clearly not a mailing list
   that currently is or in the future should be subject to such IAB
   communication constraints:

   1. It is called architecture-discuss@ietf.org, not @iab.org

   2. About: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/Architecture-discuss

    > The architecture-discuss list serves as a technical discussion
    > forum for all members of the IETF community that are interested
    > in larger > architectural issues. It is meant to be an open discussion
    > forum for all long and/or wide range architectural concerns related
    > to the Internet Architecture. In particular, it may be used to
    > discuss and bring forth different points of view on controversial
    > architectural questions. Discussions that drill down and dwell
    > on specifics of individual protocols or technologies are to be
    > discouraged, redirected to appropriate other fora, or re-cast to
    > discussions of broader implications for Internet architecture.

   3. The mayority of the discussions on the mailing list are clearly not
   lead by IAB, but are useful for the community. There is absolutely no
   need for such a mailing list to be constrained to proposed new strict
   IAB regime. Instead i think IAB membersh should be welcome into the
   discussion of the community.


On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:08:48AM -0700, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> Hello architecture-discuss,
> We???d like to share a few updates about IAB mailing lists, and solicit the community???s feedback on some new text.
> First, Tommy Pauly will be joining Stephen Farrell on the (existing, but rarely employed) sergeants-at-arms team to help moderate the list.
> Second, we???d like to clarify the sergeants-at-arms roles for the lists. The current description on https://www.iab.org/iab-mailing-lists/ <https://www.iab.org/iab-mailing-lists/> does mention that the lists use a sergeant-at-arms model for moderation, but does not describe what this role entails. It also does not specify if this role applies to all of the lists on the page, such as program lists.
> We???re proposing adding the following text to https://www.iab.org/iab-mailing-lists/ <https://www.iab.org/iab-mailing-lists/>, largely based on the IETF list SAA. We???d love to hear feedback on this approach!
> ====
> IAB mailing lists have sergeants-at-arms, whose role is ensure there are no inappropriate postings. Inappropriate postings consist of: spam and bulk e-mail; announcements of conferences or activities that are not sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society, the IETF, or the IAB; unprofessional commentary, regardless of subject; and discussion of subjects unrelated to IAB policy, programs, activities, or technical concerns.
> The sergeants-at-arms are empowered to restrict posting by a person or of a thread when the content is inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. Complaints regarding a decision should be referred to the IAB chair.
> The current sergeants-at-arms for ???architecture-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:architecture-discuss@iab.org>??? are Stephen Farrell and Tommy Pauly. For program-specific lists, the program chairs act as moderators. The "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>??? list is moderated by the Temporary RFC Series Project Manager.
> ====
> Third, we have many lists that are enumerated on the website that are for closed programs or past workshops. We checked the activity on these lists, and we believe that we can close the following lists. Any further discussion on these topics is welcome on architecture-discuss.
> - caris-attendees@iab.org <mailto:caris-attendees@iab.org>
> - emserv-discuss@iab.org <mailto:emserv-discuss@iab.org>
> - i18n-discuss@iab.org <mailto:i18n-discuss@iab.org>
> - inip-discuss@iab.org <mailto:inip-discuss@iab.org>
> - internetgovtech@iab.org <mailto:internetgovtech@iab.org>
> - iotsi@iab.org <mailto:iotsi@iab.org>
> - iotsu@iab.org <mailto:iotsu@iab.org>
> - marnew@iab.org <mailto:marnew@iab.org>
> - privsec-discuss@iab.org <mailto:privsec-discuss@iab.org>
> - stackevo-discuss@iab.org <mailto:stackevo-discuss@iab.org>
> The remaining lists will be:
> - architecture-discuss@ietf.org <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
> - chirp@iab.org <mailto:chirp@iab.org>
> - model-t@iab.org <mailto:model-t@iab.org>
> - rfced-future@iab.org <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
> Best,
> Tommy Pauly, on behalf of the IAB

> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss