Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

First, thanks for the explanation, as it helps to make the differences 
in our positions clear.

Of course it's not unusual that (for better or worse) when revising a 
document we find a conflict between a desire to make only simple 
revisions, versus needing to update every part of the document, not only 
to fix bugs but to update references, use more modern notation (e.g. 
ABNF), impose new minimum requirements (e.g. TLS version), etc., because 
many things assumed by the previous version of the document have changed 
in the time since that version was published.

> However, more fundamental changes to this process, suggested by you and others, such as appointing SAAs through the NomCom, making the SAA team the IAB's responsibility, closing the discussion list entirely, etc. would go beyond the scope of BCP45 and the minor update that BCP45bis is intending to be. I would therefore prefer to see them made independently from this minor revision.
I disagree that these would be expanding the scope of BCP45, as they 
deal with the same topics as BCP45 does.   (FWIW I'm not in favor of 
closing the ietf@ list, though I've seen that suggestion elsewhere.)
> I also think someone other than the IETF Chair should be the editor for such a larger revision of the process.
I concur.
>> These days, it seems that suppression of inconvenient input is now much more in fashion, and is even justified as enforcing "professionalism".    So I think BCP45 needs to be updated to fit the current times.
> I still disagree with your characterization that any "suppression of inconvenient input" is happening or has happened, and will point out again that BCP45 was already concerned with maintaining a level of professionalism on the discussion list; this is not terminology I added or even changed in BCP45bis.

We do indeed disagree on that, as I have personally experienced efforts 
to malign me and to discourage my input, and I've seen others treated 
similarly.   And those experiences have convinced me without a doubt 
that BCP45 has been used to justify efforts to control the IETF 
conversation that were inconsistent with its original intent, and that 
the language in BCP45 therefore needs to be updated.

Keith