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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

sorry for the delay in responding, I was out on vacation.

On 2022-6-26, at 7:19, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I think one root of the problem* is that past attempts at moderation have been attacked as illegitimate, overreaching, etc. So to improve things, I think we need two things:
> 
> 1) A well-defined purpose and scope for the plenary function (which implies that what it is *not* is also defined), and
> 2) A well-thought-out moderation function that's broadly seen as legitimate.
> 
> I think we could get a start on both at our next synchronous plenary if the IESG Chair were to ask some well-crafted questions to the community in the form of hums.

the community discussion around BCP45bis (which is now RFC9245) made it very clear that at least part of the community does not want me or the IESG to take a lead in this space.

So while I'd be happy to facilitate a discussion - including hums at the plenary if that is deemed useful - any effort here should be community-driven.

(I believe Eliot Lear has recently posted about starting a team to work on a "new model for plenary", for which something like this may be in scope. There may be other activities that I am unaware of.)

Thanks,
Lars