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 17:53, Rob Sayre wrote:

> Well, when I wrote that IETF@ was "outward-facing", what I meant was 
> that newcomers encounter it and it does happen to represent the 
> organization by dint of its name.

I certainly agree that a newcomer looking at the ietf@ list today would 
not get a very accurate or useful impression of what the IETF does.

Partially, IMO, this is because there have been explicit efforts to 
strip many discussions from the IETF list, so a lot of what's left are 
topics of occasional or peripheral interest.

And partially, IMO, this is because there is some tendency for the ietf@ 
list to rathole on topics that are undecidable and/or problems which 
IETF cannot address.

If the plenary function of the ietf@ list were restored, it wouldn't 
bother me to have a separate list to serve as an escape valve for 
discussions that were judged to be off-topic or ratholes and that had 
iterated too long.   It's conceivable that such discussions, once 
determined to be either off-topic or ratholes, could automatically be 
redirected to the alternative list.   (In my mind such a list reminds me 
of a "pop off valve" used to relieve excess pressure in 
water/air/hydraulic systems.)

Keith