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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2021-9-27, at 22:32, Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> As has been suggested on this thread, if there is a desire for a more fundamentally respecification of how list moderation on the discussion list operates, this would be better handled as a separate work item.
> 
> I haven't seen a reason given for making it a separate work item, so I can only guess as to why you make that assertion.

let me try and explain.

The only reason I even started a BCP45bis (thinking it would be a quick, non-controversial update...) was that a previous IESG promised to the community this would be done in case the "last-call experiment" was declared a success, to "to formally move the location for last-call discussions". [1]

Besides minor corrections and wording suggestions from various IETF participants, the only other changes of note are:

* to remove the wording about IETF Exec Dir's ability to impose posting restrictions (which RFC8717 already made effective)

* to do the same for the IETF Chair (per current practice)

* to add some material from the SAA team on their self-organization principles

* to clarify that the normal appeals process applies to SAA decisions

None of these changes - in my opinion - go beyond what BCP45 already defined, and I'd therefore characterize them as minor updates.

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 also think someone other than the IETF Chair should be the editor for such a larger revision of the process.

> 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.

Thanks,
Lars