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

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 21 April 2020 18:04 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBE43A0901; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uem2V1gD2jpq; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95ECC3A08FE; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBAE1548043; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:04:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id E2ECA440041; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:04:33 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:04:33 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200421180433.GA60727@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20200420184456.GG5351@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <c8c9947a-9fa5-e208-6560-01f31067a590@gmail.com> <CAHBDyN6b_GFDaxRj1v4n==NjZJMXt11sBSsRcik7R1b0kN4yUA@mail.gmail.com> <93a7ae7f-c2bc-a009-baa9-8671de5ee384@gmail.com> <CAHBDyN5Jf1amBHFXwWVtG1De74M7bvTZaxiX9L1x6TtzNG-nmw@mail.gmail.com> <1b3a6b47-a4b4-1527-0adc-77d4421d8947@joelhalpern.com> <20200421005043.GC19381@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <981f1bcf-ec19-582f-14b6-3e264804c8bc@joelhalpern.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <981f1bcf-ec19-582f-14b6-3e264804c8bc@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/x0APqQiXjr97K0oYhsUD9QsFcXc>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 18:04:46 -0000

Thanks, Joel.

I think in general it would be good to avod creating multiple places
where to look for policies about mailing lists. IMHO the "about" on
mailman should be authoritative.

If a non-wg maiing list seems to need some explicit management
person(s), maybe add that info to the "about". I am not sure
any of the current non-WG IETF mailing lists actually has any
official designated persons for such a rule (except well-known
exceptions such as ietf@ietf.org). IMHO self-management works
usually well, and in the few case where not, one could always
escalate to IESG/IAB. Whether a separate designated SAA is
better i doubt, but no strong opinion.


Chers
    Toerless

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:32:49PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I have seen many examples on different lists around the IETF of situations
> where it needed someone to be able to say "no, that does not belong".  Or
> "your question has been answered.  Unless you have a new issue, please
> stop."  Or other variations.  There have been some postings on
> architecture-discuss that in my opinion (and I grant it is not mine to
> judge) were pushing the limits of what belongs.  And at least some of them
> seemed quite unable to hear "this does not belong". (Fortunately, in the
> case I am thinking of, the rate is low enough we survived.)
> 
> No, I do not think we need the moderator / SAA function very often.  But I
> do think it is entirely reasonable to be clear who has that responsibility /
> authority.  For IETF WGs, that is the chairs.
> 
> On the specifics, I read the note from the SAAs as saying that the list
> excludes things that aare off topic.  You reasonably read the note as saying
> something more restrictive.  That part we can (and I think have) clarify.
> That is quite distinct from whether there should be a backstop.  And given
> that the list was set up by the IAB, it seems appropriate that they appoint
> the backstop.  (I am generally not in favor of the IAB or IESG grabbing
> extra authority.  I do not see this as being of that form.)
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> 
> On 4/20/2020 8:50 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > Hi Joel,
> > 
> > Don't you think it is sufficient for the mailing list
> > to self-manage ? i have seen nothing worse than on any of
> > the other 9999 IETF mailling lists that are not ietf@ietf.org.
> > 
> > Indeed, i think we have seen some good examples of self-management
> > on the list in the past month. Tell me if you think that did
> > or did not work well.
> > 
> > I for once would be afraid, that if specific persons where
> > given more power to control the scope of the discussion,
> > we might not even have had the technical exchange to answer
> > to specific claims made. On the other hand, i have seen bad
> > examples of the SAA model on the ietf@ietf.org mailing list:
> > 
> > An SAA model can quickly deteriorates IMHO into more and
> > more passive-aggressive language policing discussion on all sides as
> > opposed to best effort minimizing robust language and sticking
> > to the technical topics - which i think what happens easier
> > without SAA.
> > 
> > I am very interested to hear you express a more specific definition
> > of what you think should be in scope of architecture-discuss than what
> > is written in the current mailmain "about".  But probably better to
> > discuss this in a separate thread.
> > 
> > Cheers
> >      Toerless
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 05:54:12PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > > My read has been that architecture-discuss was for Internet Architecture
> > > topics of relevance to the IAB or IETF.
> > > 
> > > That does not, in my book, include random musing about research projects
> > > that may or may not lead to something in some ill-defined time in the
> > > future.
> > > 
> > > And even if you disagree with the specific example, it does mean that there
> > > are clearly things which are off-topic for architecture-discuss. Which means
> > > that someone needs to be authorized to deal with such things when they
> > > become problematic.
> > > 
> > > Yours,
> > > Joel
> > > 
> > > On 4/20/2020 4:13 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> > > > Thanks - I hadn't followed Toeless' thread where he encountered the
> > > > problem that triggered his email.
> > > > 
> > > > Just to make sure I understand - the architecture-discuss list is
> > > > intended only for topics that the IAB deems of interest specifically to
> > > > the IAB and NOT a general community list to discuss things related to
> > > > the Internet architecture.  Is that correct?   If so, then it does seem
> > > > we need a list where folks can have discussion of technical topics that
> > > > aren't necessarily related to work IAB is doing.   I know we've
> > > > discussed in the past that the IETF discussion list is most suitable for
> > > > those discussions but I think most would agree that the list has a whole
> > > > lot more discussion of how we do non-technical things than technical (I
> > > > would guess 90/10 for the most part).   I think many don't pay near the
> > > > attention to the list that they might if it were technical discussions -
> > > > for example, I subscribe to that list using my general email that I use
> > > > for not real work.
> > > > 
> > > > So, one question I would have then, is whether it's thus only
> > > > appropriate for someone in the community to post to architecture-discuss
> > > > if they are asking specific questions on current IAB activities and
> > > > documents?
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Mary.
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 2:52 PM Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com
> > > > <mailto:melinda.shore@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >      On 4/20/20 11:49 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> > > >       > Personally, I think it's a handy list to have
> > > >       > for purely technical discussions as opposed to all the non-technical
> > > >       > discussions on the main IETF discussion list.
> > > > 
> > > >      Right, but I think it's clear that it's not every technical
> > > >      discussion, which circles back around to Toerless's argument.
> > > > 
> > > >      Melinda
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Architecture-discuss mailing list
> > > > Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Architecture-discuss mailing list
> > > Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> > 

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