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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Just my .02 - 

I think one root of the problem* is that past attempts at moderation have been attacked as illegitimate, overreaching, etc. So to improve things, I think we need two things:

1) A well-defined purpose and scope for the plenary function (which implies that what it is *not* is also defined), and
2) A well-thought-out moderation function that's broadly seen as legitimate.

I think we could get a start on both at our next synchronous plenary if the IESG Chair were to ask some well-crafted questions to the community in the form of hums.

Cheers,

* there may be more


> On 25 Jun 2022, at 11:03 pm, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 25.06.22 02:30, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> But, the above isn't that important, I think what's below is
>> moreso:
>> 
>> On 24/06/2022 05:29, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> IMO it's long past time to stop trying to kill IETF's sense of community and high time to start trying to restore one. 
>> 
>> I very strongly agree with the above. 
> 
> Me too.
> 
>> There are quite a few
>> aspects of that diminishing "sense of community" that could
>> be teased out, but IMO it'd likely be more productive to try
>> foster such things than dissect and try reconstruct 'em.
> 
> If what you mean in by dissecting and reconstructing is the splitting of lists and removal of plenary power from the IETF list, then I agree that we have fragmented that function in a way that has harmed the organization's community identity and, I believe, the Internet architecture.  Plenary is needed not only for that identity but so that the left hand (or however many hands we have) knows what the right hand is doing.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that there should be  a free-for-all on a mailing list.  Endless bickering about the same old subjects is not helpful.  Debating points not within the power of the IETF is counter-productive.
> 
> A plenary function need not consist of a single medium, but can be woven together between a mailing list, a chat room , f2f meetings, and documents.  A discussion has to have a beginning, a middle, and an end; with possible actions.  And it should be grounded in well thought out positions, preferrably in Internet-draft form.  If people can't take the time to write those, then whatever it is, it can't be SO important as to take the time and attention of the entire organization.
> 
> And yes, I've been thinking about this for a while.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/