Re: [Gendispatch] Ending [e-mail] <-- the dispatch question

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

I looked into this a bit more, and re-read RFC 3005 (which does not seem to
be being followed). Mark's draft is useful, and correctly describes many
issues, but I think a document that obsoletes RFC 3005 is what's required.

I wrote this as a first draft:


## Charter for the General IETF Mailing List

The general IETF mailing list, [e-mail], exists to communicate the
activities of the IETF as a whole. While discussion is permitted, the list
is not intended to host lengthy discussions on any topic. As this is the
most general IETF mailing list, participants SHOULD first seek more
appropriate venues before sending a message. If that effort fails, asking
questions about where or how to address an issue is OK.

The general IETF list also distributes brief summaries from related
organizations, such as the IESG, IAB, ISE, the RFC Editor, and the IETF
Administrative function. These updates SHOULD contain recommendations on
the correct venue for discussion. Other lists, such as [e-mail]
and [e-mail] contain more detailed records, such as specific
dates for interim WG meetings.

Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote employment
opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable topics, as do
discussions of a personal nature.

## Charter for [e-mail]

Historically, the general IETF list allowed more free-flowing discussion.
In order to respect the time of the IETF's many participants, these
discussions now reside at [e-mail]. This list furthers
the development and specification of Internet technology through discussion
of technical issues. It also hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy,
meetings, and procedures. As this is the IETF mailing list with the most
general charter, considerable latitude is allowed. [...recommendations from
Mark's draft...]

Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote employment
opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable topics, as do
discussions of a personal nature.

## Obsoleting RFC 3005

Since RFC 3005 does not distinguish between [e-mail] and
[e-mail], there must be a process that creates the
distinction. The policies outlined above for [e-mail] will become
effective when this draft becomes a BCP. Participants will not be
automatically subscribed to [e-mail], but the IETF Chair
will post a notification when this change policy becomes effective, and
will do so on a montly basis for six months.


thanks,
Rob


On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:11 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:07 PM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> My position is still best summarised here:
>>   https://mnot.github.io/I-D/discussion-recharter/
>
>
> Ah, I've read this draft before, and I agree with what it says, as far as
> it goes.
>
> I'll think about combining this and R. Wilton's ideas.
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>> > On 8 Apr 2021, at 4:23 am, Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:41 AM Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> > On 6 Apr 2021, at 19:23, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd observe that last-call@ was introduced by the IESG after community
>> consultation. Is that a potential path for dispatch -- i.e., saying "IESG,
>> you might want to look at this..."?
>> >
>> > Yep, that's on the list in the charter:
>> > - Requesting that the the IESG or the IETF LLC consider taking up the
>> work.
>> > Nonetheless, I think the IESG would appreciate a draft to look at.
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't feel the need to drive here. If Mark wants to, that's fine with
>> me. This problem seems to be a bit of a hot potato.
>> >
>> > But I'll put on my flame-retardant pants and write the I-D if
>> necessary. :)
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Rob
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>