Re: [Gendispatch] Updating the IETF Discussion List Charter (was: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-eggert-bcp45bis-02.txt)

Hi folks,

I've now waded through 30 odd messages and I'd like to suggest that people
take a pause.

Speaking as someone who thinks ietf@ietf.org could use some major
restructuring, I'd like to acknowledge that there is nothing like community
consensus for that. Continuing to debate proposals for that kind of
restructuring is simply a waste of everyone's time.

Instead, can we focus on proposals which actually have a chance of
obtaining rough consensus? The last-call list seems like an example
of that, allowing people to participate in a big chunk of the work of the
IETF without subscribing to the ietf@ietf.org list. Perhaps there are
other such proposals, in which case we should look at them, but yet
another argument about whether we should disband the list
seems unproductive.

-Ekr

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:14 AM Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'd like to restart the discussion on updating the charter for the
> ietf@ietf.org discussion list, and have hence submitted an -02 update to
> draft-eggert-bcp45bis.
>
> As you may remember, a past IESG promised an update to BCP45 after the
> "last-call" experiment succeeded [1]. (The second promised action, an
> update of the 2007 IESG Statement on Last Call Guidance - was already taken
> [2].)
>
> draft-eggert-bcp45bis is intended to be a minimal update to BCP45,
> reflecting the creation of the last-call mailing list. It seemed sensible
> to also add information about other lists that have similarly taken over
> some of the original purposes for ietf@ietf.org (e.g., admin-discuss, the
> per-meeting "attendees" lists, etc.), and to reference the
> current Sergeants-at-Arms procedures. I did not intend to make any other
> changes to BCP45.
>
> I'll point out that there are other proposals [3][4] that propose more
> fundamental changes to ietf@ietf.org. it would be useful to understand
> which direction the community would like to take here.
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LiB_dlvv3ZFlTF8hGp7GbGngqSg/
> [2] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/last-call-guidance/
> [3]
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-nottingham-discussion-recharter-00.txt
> [4]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/kprAAlSfmWcQmaC8W4ZJn5c1XzI
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> *From: *internet-drafts@ietf.org
> *Subject: **New Version Notification for draft-eggert-bcp45bis-02.txt*
> *Date: *June 23, 2021 at 14:54:57 GMT+3
> *To: *"Lars Eggert" <lars@eggert.org>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-eggert-bcp45bis-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Lars Eggert and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-eggert-bcp45bis
> Revision: 02
> Title: IETF Discussion List Charter
> Document date: 2021-06-23
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 6
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-eggert-bcp45bis-02.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-bcp45bis/
> Html:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-eggert-bcp45bis-02.html
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eggert-bcp45bis
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-eggert-bcp45bis-02
>
> Abstract:
>   The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) discussion mailing list
>   furthers the development and specification of Internet technology
>   through the general discussion of topics for which no dedicated
>   mailing lists exists.  As this is the most general IETF mailing list,
>   considerable latitude is allowed, but there are posts that are
>   unsuitable for this mailing list.
>
>   This document obsoletes RFC3005.
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> Gendispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>