Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-eggert-bcp45bis-01.txt

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 30/03/2021 12:33, Lars Eggert wrote:
> I think draft-nottingham-discussion-recharter makes a pretty
> convincing case [e-mail]  isn't a general list for the IETF
> community (= the "union" I mentioned above), and probably hasn't been
> for quite some time.

I don't agree that Mark's draft is convincing. I do think
the topics raised are interesting and warrant debate some
place/time, but I don't really agree with the fundamental
ideas that representation and productivity are the most
important characteristics for our broadest discussion venue.

That said, the draft in the subject line doesn't go there
and is fine.

My only quibble with draft-eggert-bcp45bis is that the
opening sentence from section 2 ("This list is meant for
initial technical discussion only.") is badly phrased
and contradicted by later text. I think it'd be better to
say "This list is not meant for detailed technical
discussion that belongs on a WG list or on it's own list,
once such a list exists." (Or, just delete the first
sentence as it's not needed.)

Cheers,
S.