Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Fri, 13 March 2020 06:36 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015913A11D7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e4Vs9UgTLIqo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12f.google.com (mail-il1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F1113A11D0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id a6so7872174ilc.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=74OcSHIZWB+4pf/kbO4DqCPAZjZpiT6IRPLf1varMcA=; b=kbeBNbv1IPDnqhidYk2VsjptmFqmz2wjme6RkOU/UZXmqGx0WiZjGOfVos6FFob/QK bsS36Q4VWQLWvULLsnfMhJyYHU/MX6vUSxS4/2G84W9HPCzSfotSEU3WiN3K7oFm9lb3 R6p8Jnun/pA7V5oT1XKnZa+H6Agv3oq3bAA0Ta5KoovQQX1eXpEfHNVNa+xkLM0m/pYE L6R/aK7QD+20TyLytZFsc7u8bZhBM+o23u86hIfP3quS651JTR42v79U5uHQjZuBahof h3r7UdbTsssB+XX/K7ZMkBe8R6uRLHAVEJ3ykmB4CLuPlhB66PuvDSYjt4LcMvdj5ozj KuWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=74OcSHIZWB+4pf/kbO4DqCPAZjZpiT6IRPLf1varMcA=; b=XkaGcqFot8YSfPIHvV0TztYjhCRhSJym0YnG9SdQeZjiw5VkPj/63+CvRj/zm+hcGi 4PzULfP/DUsDi/QmsyWXq6gdy8vBsnC8RdZOapMbh887pcdFa3EXiF8fY2meuoBcpfLT MSI4VJpCBwPVFlx2UZtrr3K13sg0g6aw/2GCuJGdYPDMxPC2TyIJjlqIPeVvig5SwBnP HigwopMZ5Mb/0GPDL5kA32rRJ5GTxH8/SAfKotAsCrVusURQEc0n8zNMPGoRHXt2yco1 V0Cw9MdAAWy41mqMpAo7yJYYYPBxuC41aOAeD33jvFjfCu3qCWxL7kmsfyKNBWafjuq1 f/1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3n5QNxsJ1kKDThPFDSgdbsq+BzyYuZSIHoV0jlyHDglGsZl8ao EJ/NDa1XyALuJxx49sg5sQj6D0CbY5l/uYWADOA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vvW2GYnRrrzxTB3zXeD6Wgh5YsPDJs+I8Bm9rj4?= =?utf-8?q?znwaBsATD8KIfssNHcrzRp2xj0s6883v5ebhnZAAo0XMuyU=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:5f98:: with SMTP id i24mr6704062ill.73.1584081395277; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJKvdoy9MtzHMwq-Ew-EJoUs0V8t+y01FL-E5r3xdyRemQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKvdoy9MtzHMwq-Ew-EJoUs0V8t+y01FL-E5r3xdyRemQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:36:22 +1000
Message-ID: <CAChr6Sw=yoTSzD4XUKEEojspW8=Bsfv9QzDqRz5S0fHR0Cda9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dc65fc05a0b6b0e5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3fOdWzRAsM0j19gN4YhOGBE1rMA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:36:38 -0000

Hi,

In my view, the experiment is a success.

It seems like the general IETF is currently concerned with issues not
related to document review.

thanks,
Rob


On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:14 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> As we discussed in the plenary session at IETF 105 in Montréal, some
> community members have suggested moving document last-call discussions
> onto a dedicated "last-call" mailing list, and off of the general
> <ietf@ietf.org> list.  The latter is a high-volume list with a lot of
> varied discussion, and some think that it would be useful to separate
> the general discussion from the last-call discussion, to allow people
> to choose which discussions (or both) to follow.  In the IETF 105
> plenary, support was expressed for that separation.
>
> The IESG agrees, and wants to try an experiment to that end.  We
> propose to create <last-call@ietf.org> and to direct last-call
> comments and discussions there (the last-call announcements would
> still go to <ietf-announce@ietf.org>rg>, with "reply-to" set to the new
> list).  That list would be monitored by volunteers recruited by the
> IETF Chair, and digressions would be nudged back to <ietf@ietf.org>rg>,
> while we would ask people having last-call discussions on this list to
> please move them to the new list.  We would get the tools team
> involved so that the distribution lists for directorate and
> review-team reviews would be updated appropriately.
>
> Our plan is to create the new list and pre-subscribe everyone who is
> subscribed to <ietf@ietf.org> at that time.  Of course, anyone could
> unsubscribe to either or both lists immediately or later, but we think
> that doing it this way would minimize the likelihood that people would
> miss important stuff because of the move, and folks can choose what
> they prefer from there.
>
> After six months, we would do an initial evaluation, including getting
> feedback from the community, to see how the experiment is working.  If
> it seems worth continuing we would do so, and at a point that the
> community decides that the experiment is a success (should it so
> decide), we would start an update to BCP 45 to formally move the
> location for last-call discussions, and we would update the 2007 IESG
> Statement on Last Call Guidance.
>
> We invite comments, here, on this plan, by the end of September. As I
> say above, we've heard support from the community for the general
> idea, and we'd like to make sure this direction is what the community
> wants.
>
> Barry, for the IESG
>
>