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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 6/25/22 09:03, Eliot Lear wrote:

> 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. 
Agree with that much.   So there could be some established mechanism to 
terminate debate.   There could also be something similar to the old 
Usenet FAQ mechanism that existed to avoid having the same discussions 
over and over.  And it is possible to add "+1" and voting functions to a 
mailing list.

> Debating points not within the power of the IETF is counter-productive.
Disagree at least somewhat.   If the subject is relevant to the IETF, or 
perhaps technical aspects of the wider Internet, it should be able to be 
discussed, though not indefinitely.   For example, it should be okay to 
talk about the problems caused by protocol X that affect the Internet, 
even if protocol X isn't specified by an IETF RFC.  Or the problems 
caused by some country's laws.  etc. Anything that helps the IETF 
community understand how to do it's job better, including understanding 
of the landscape in which it operates, should be permitted.

> 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. 

Mumble.   Agree in principle, though it's easy for a discussion over 
multiple media to become too fragmented to be useful.     A typical IETF 
f2f meeting with a Jabber chat room often has that quality, where there 
is a main discussion going on and a chat room which sometimes subverts 
the main discussion.   (And there used to be "bad attitude" discussions 
separate from that - don't know if those still exist.)  I'm not saying 
that the counterpoint from the chat room isn't valuable, actually think 
it indicates that our current method of holding f2f meetings leaves 
something to be desired.   The strict queue is stifling to discussion, 
and people sometimes put their opinions in the chat room because they 
really can't get their points made before the subject has moved on.

Chat rooms are also kind of unfair in a way, in that they favor those 
who can type quickly.

Another way to say this is that they actually do need to be "woven" 
together rather than haphazardly smashed together.   Then again the 
Meetecho folks have been quite accommodating at trying to do that, and 
the improvements have showed, but "more research seems to be needed".

> 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. 

Often you need to have a discussion before you write an I-D, if you want 
that I-D to be useful.   If there's too large an impedance match between 
your initial I-D and what the community is willing to consider, your I-D 
is dead on arrival.

But again, such a discussion doesn't need to last indefinitely.

Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but writing an I-D is interpreted as 
"I HAVE A SERIOUS PROPOSAL", and if it doesn't quite hit the mark, 
causes many people to prematurely go into "damage control" mode.   Maybe 
because I-Ds are too much work, maybe also because they look too much 
like RFCs and have so many rules enforced on them these days.  I-Ds were 
not originally intended to be that much work; we've layered on more and 
more formal requirements and expectations over the years.

And not every discussion needs to produce a published document to be useful.

Keith