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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 25-Jun-22 07:10, Rob Sayre wrote:
...

> I agree that it is a reasonable topic, but I question whether "the most general IETF list" is the right place for it.

I have to say that this statement (regardless of the value of "it") gives me cognitive dissonance.

If the most general IETF list is not the place to raise new, unexpected issues that don't fit into any other specific list, where is that place, and what does the most general list exist for?

The IETF list has moderators. One of the things they should do, if no other citizen of the list does so, is point out that "it" is appropriate to some other list. If there is no such list, then either the discussion will die away, or somebody will do something about "it", such as proposing a new list, a BOF, or an AD promises to take action, etc.

> The IETF list often ratholes on meeting planning issues (and related politics). People actually get paid to think about the problem. There are event planners and insurance policies, etc.

But they are not the boss of us. Actually we (the IETF participants as a whole) are the boss of them. For specific aspects of that we have a dedicated forum: shmoo. For meetings in general, we don't, afaik. And I *really* don't see why moving those discussions to a hypothetical [e-mail] list would change much.

If you want a specific topic that might need dispatching here, try drafting a charter for a "Sustainable Worldwide IETF Meetings" WG. I donate the acronym SWIM as my contribution.

> 
> Plus, many participants will never attend a meeting. I have been to more than one, but never will again.

And there's another good topic for [e-mail] - why do some participants never come to meetings, and does it matter?
> 
>     And I think it's up to community judgment, at that
>     point, when the discussion veers into endless political discussion and
>     *suggestions* (not demands) should be made about wrapping it up and
>     moving on.  I agree with Keith that we never got to that point this
>     time.
> 
>     And that, to me, is the general sort of thing: let's not try to limit
>     the topics on the community list.
> 
> 
> The ietf@ list is external facing. 

Sorry, what does that mean? Most IETF lists are open to the public.

> I don't really understand why there would be resistance to experiments that adjust its "most general list" designation. It seems like fair game to me--plenty of people think the list isn't very good.

So you would solve the problem by creating a general list with a different name?

Regards
     Brian