Re: Stray thoughts on ' Update of IESG statement "Last Call Guidance to the Community"'

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Fri, 23 April 2021 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 39AD93A1444 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.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 p-9kR72h-UDY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075C53A1441 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1619193975; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=9jJIsin2RLPpScjAc92G7wORza/9/L1uGHxkKOwTnBA=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=H6H7L138VjUhQwW2Fmr9KUeLP/i66Kv4LurzK5e9csDZLOQUqlMj9WGYgeWdgzu/dE6Ih8 d9XPdB16SmW6tjFPTysdl8Gzffch/HyJZALHrNkSc45NsgOIIahCeWURD7XcUCG/K9MIee b7xEaLVVUDXI4EM1tqHWgVoLP6bVRLg=;
Received: from [192.168.1.222] (host5-81-100-77.range5-81.btcentralplus.com [5.81.100.77]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <YILwdwA0hDX0@waldorf.isode.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 17:06:15 +0100
Subject: Re: Stray thoughts on ' Update of IESG statement "Last Call Guidance to the Community"'
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <161859546000.27694.13585496003852397044@ietfa.amsl.com> <6081A148.7070701@btconnect.com> <8279565a-ee50-ab3a-8b97-afc6ca23f4ba@gmail.com> <bf5f53fb-0aad-941d-a683-e7c40165cbac@nostrum.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <ac78d56e-b137-8daa-f05e-d58eecaed93d@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 17:06:14 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
In-Reply-To: <bf5f53fb-0aad-941d-a683-e7c40165cbac@nostrum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9AVKpoZRQhEq7r2TehRuEcpeb5Y>
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, 23 Apr 2021 16:06:25 -0000

On 22/04/2021 21:59, Adam Roach wrote:

> On 4/22/21 15:40, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>>> Last, comments from organised review teams should be sent to the last
>>> call list as opposed to being made available to the community.
>> The last call list *is* available to the community, so this is just
>> being more specific about what "available to the community" means.
>> Is that a problem?
>
>
> More pointedly -- it lets folks see discussions of IETF work product 
> without them getting lost among (checks notes) 150 messages about a 
> New York Times article, 132 posts about QUIC and DNSSEC, and 234 
> messages about inclusiveness.
>
> I'm not necessarily saying these topics aren't worth discussing; but 
> it's important to get broad consensus on the documents we publish as 
> RFCs, and we can't afford to lose those conversations under the crush 
> of high-volume topics. The risk of documents in last call getting lost 
> in the noise is far more of a barrier to being "available to the 
> community" than the use of a dedicated mailing list.
+1. I unsubscribed from ietf@ietf.org for exactly that reason.