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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

On 25.06.22 02:30, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> But, the above isn't that important, I think what's below is
> moreso:
>
> On 24/06/2022 05:29, Keith Moore wrote:
>> IMO it's long past time to stop trying to kill IETF's sense of 
>> community and high time to start trying to restore one. 
>
> I very strongly agree with the above. 

Me too.

> There are quite a few
> aspects of that diminishing "sense of community" that could
> be teased out, but IMO it'd likely be more productive to try
> foster such things than dissect and try reconstruct 'em.

If what you mean in by dissecting and reconstructing is the splitting of 
lists and removal of plenary power from the IETF list, then I agree that 
we have fragmented that function in a way that has harmed the 
organization's community identity and, I believe, the Internet 
architecture.  Plenary is needed not only for that identity but so that 
the left hand (or however many hands we have) knows what the right hand 
is doing.

But that doesn't mean that there should be  a free-for-all on a mailing 
list.  Endless bickering about the same old subjects is not helpful.  
Debating points not within the power of the IETF is counter-productive.

A plenary function need not consist of a single medium, but can be woven 
together between a mailing list, a chat room , f2f meetings, and 
documents.  A discussion has to have a beginning, a middle, and an end; 
with possible actions.  And it should be grounded in well thought out 
positions, preferrably in Internet-draft form.  If people can't take the 
time to write those, then whatever it is, it can't be SO important as to 
take the time and attention of the entire organization.

And yes, I've been thinking about this for a while.

Eliot