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

Thanks, Tommy, inline

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:00:23PM -0700, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> >> announcements of conferences or activities that are not sponsored
> >> or endorsed by the Internet Society, the IETF, or the IAB
> > 
> > OK.

Oops. That was typo on my end. Should have been NOK, because
the way i read it, bar-bof/inofficial-side-meeting discussions
sound like not being permitted by this.

> >> and discussion of subjects unrelated to IAB policy,
> >> programs, activities, or technical concerns"
> 
> How about ???and mail with content unrelated to technical discussion, Internet architecture, or activities of the IAB????

I think the scope of the mailing list is very well reflected
in the description on mail man. I don't think that type of
text would improve it or could/should replace it.

> It is not the intention of this clarification in the SAA role to at all restrict discussion of the topics you???re bringing up here, such as New IP, or to to limit discussion of side meetings about such. Indeed, such discussion (even if it isn???t an event organized by the IAB), is of relevance and interest to Internet architecture.

Thanks.

> Working on this text is certainly good to do with your input, and others. The current text is lifted mainly from the IETF discussion list SAA description.

Maybe refer to the intent of a specific mailing list as descibed
in its mailman "About" instead of trying to reinvent it.

> The goal of mentioning irrelevant activities was more to make it clear that if someone started posting what is effectively spam to a list, that the SAA could reach out to the person to moderate that. What is relevant to each list is dependent on the list. Architecture-discuss is indeed a broad list, and any discussion that is truly about Internet architecture fits.

> Largely, the motivation to update and clarify this text is to ensure that the community agrees on what the *existing* role of the SAA is for these lists, and to ensure that if there is a instance in which the SAA does need to step in (let???s say, due to spamming the list), that there is a consistent and standard response to make. My hope is to limit this role such that it cannot be used in the ways you mention (limiting community discussion and organization of relevant topics).

I have not seen a need on architecture-discuss for an
SAA to step in.  I think we have a robust peer
discussion culture on the list, and i think that there
is a good balance of well-meaning attempt to create
order and equally well-meaning rebuttals when those
seem to go overboard. No need to make that traditional
IETF equilibrium more complex through SAA roles unless
IMHO there is more hard evidence of need and likelyhood
of benefit.

> > 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
> 
> This list is, in fact, an IAB-sponsored activity since its inception. The list does exist at both @ietf.org, and @iab.org.

Sure. But the description makes this clearly an IETF activity,
it does not mention IAB at all, and i think that was intended
by its original sponsors and should stay this way. This is
a mailing list for the IETF community and IAB is welcome to
participante as IETF members. 

Its easy for any more iab centric activities to use @iab.org.

> >   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 membership should be welcome into the
> >   discussion of the community.
> 
> Indeed, the discussion on the list is to be encouraged! The goal of clarifying the policy is to ensure that, as this list is an IAB-sponsored activity, that the community does have a productive and open space to discuss. The SAA???s role is to handle spam or abuse only.

Thanks
    Toerless

> 
> Thanks,
> Tommy
> 
> > 
> > Cheers
> >    Toerless
> > 
> > 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

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de