Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-eggert-bcp45bis-01.txt

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

Just two comments for now.

> On 30 Mar 2021, at 13:33, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Hi,
> 
> On 2021-3-30, at 13:59, Eliot Lear <lear=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I’d prefer to discuss fundamentals before we dispatch this draft.  The first question I think we should ask is this:
>> 
>> 	• Is there an IETF community, members of which are meant to cross-fertilize ideas, such that end product is the most generally useful? OR
>> 	• Are there merely disparate efforts that occasionally interact with one another, who all happen to use roughly the same processes and publication format?
> 
> I think neither of these two captures my mental model of the IETF, which is one of several (many?) communities around different technical (or administrative) topics, which are all overlapping one another to some degree or another (the topics and the communities both). The union of all these communities would be "an IETF community", as in your first bullet.

Sure.  And there may be other ways to look at this as well.

> 
> That said, I don't think these differences matter very much, because:
> 
>> If one believes the latter, then we might as well dispose of the IETF list in its entirety and perhaps let the IESG advise authors as to which dispatch function they should use, if needs be.  If one believes the former, as I do, then I would rather see the list function to address cross-cutting issues that community members would like to discuss.
> 
> draft-eggert-bcp45bis doesn't intend to introduce any changes to the charter of [e-mail] other than those that are already in effect due to the establishment of the last-call list and other lists that have been created since BCP45 we published to be a home for recurring discussion topics. In other words, draft-eggert-bcp45bisit doesn't change the ability for the community to have cross-cutting discussions or to cross-fertilize ideas on the [e-mail] list.

That’s my point.  Before we do a BCP45 update, perhaps we should ask if we should go farther, and take on Mark’s draft as well in this context, and then consider what should be done.  I like the idea of facilitated conversation.  I think it could be fun (a term not usually associated with the IETF list) but that’s me.  I’m sure others have their own ideas.

Eliot