Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:38:00PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 22:04 -0500 Benjamin Kaduk
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 08:38:44AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter
> > wrote:
> >> It would certainly be ironic if a proposal to alleviate some
> >> of the disadvantages of remote participation couldn't be be
> >> discussed by remote participants in multiple time zones.
> >> 
> >> With all due respect, etc. etc., I've always understood that
> >> discussion by email was intended to alleviate exactly that
> >> problem, and this list *is* the IETF plenary. So exactly who
> >> has been disenfranchised from this discussion who would be
> >> enfranchised by a physical or virtual BOF?
> > 
> > Taking this question at face value: technically, "no one",
> > since membership in the list is open modulo posting actions or
> > SAA actions (I think there may be one or two of the latter
> > still active, hence scare quotes). But in practice, I hear
> > from the grapevine that many people are unwilling to subscribe
> > to or participate in discussions solely on this list, because
> > the volume of traffic is large and the perceived signal/noise
> > ratio insufficient to merit the time commitment.
> > 
> > Having a dedicated discussion forum other than this one is
> > both in keeping with the list charter and would provide a
> > lower barrier to participation from those who have stayed away
> > from the general discussion list but do care about remote
> > participation.  It is fair to debate the cardinality of that
> > set, if you have a different perception than me, of course.
> 
> Ben,
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have just made an
> argument for either a dedicated mailing list or, as Spencer
> suggested, using something like the ietf-nomcom (more like
> co-opting, because this really isn't about the nomcom) list and
> no argument at all for a BOF.   

Hi John,

I don't think that's the point I was making.  I was attempting to make a
narrowly scoped statement about the IETF general discussion list *not*
being an appropriate venue for a specific topic, something that I've had to
think about repeatedly while holding the post of Sergeant-at-Arms.

In contrast to my negative statement, we've seen some positive statements
in this thread considering what *would* be an appropriate venue for this
topic, and what level of community engagement is appropriate to expect for
publication of a document this entwined with IETF process, all of which I
am happy to see.

-Ben