Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Wed, 26 February 2020 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DE73A110D; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:55:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R3OTWpud65Oi; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:54:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AE6C3A10ED; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:54:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f24so133661lfh.3; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:54:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Af/yJt1n341Hd0hp6ryqKyJC2NPIqtOfD3rPekv4Sjk=; b=K4cWd4/D3zf0aZT8FnEaPl03g+HvTeCqivGqZunLzEd6NGRDUc/WBbcOyDO/2vqS2w tlxqlWrin5kdZPckq7lbT9/T4KZrOItWyIfUzmcVVnwXjZurwNWThD249X8+ux/pSMkT J6QDwCh1c75d0LyTyWl4IxcrkRweLhvEc8nzRbqnOSU9evrtw3Wgm68M7tF49pO9mAkY WloueNuCiafYTqV/4V7Tr7BKF1VGrxbaIghLKg/N59nB+fQKZfQ0+FbAyZErmuuIo2pr EZ0jvRgpzakSajUrBJLeYbr8zz5m7rmqQKraFFZ8JfHbreobxftsfpVukXvp2NPxSTn6 I9/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Af/yJt1n341Hd0hp6ryqKyJC2NPIqtOfD3rPekv4Sjk=; b=b2gacQPhkYj+NhksN58MzcGcKFCsDhDnskTb4CcgiIf8RJbpP5rq6aHHkW1bj8lO04 y7FmL6beK5cg0Nu4Fa9MIa/pPs8H1+puqcFlFzipt4agDeCyXvZBiYjf2czg2390JFs8 hXwyK7D3+Dk9ndspPFS48nyvR9LpPROxPElJJ3A3JkIyvrQ8eVuFeOYaVjLVxV6JxXCh LpRLUAK5ye7qruybS+DFMtzvHLmPPYz45GBXG5JDkNwQ5kVCvR5Zw/1DkJQjW7qxHgzO apOYg7z3+ILz5tzSpx4XTALefpkFOJQJwtxaPGqfmhgpa+rc15SfdeABo1bKgCpwLbxZ Fdpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0fBaA7dh0uzzk0C4RzHsKDkrnMIk1kGaHAYJXghiXmitsrB1DY 0P62sAcxCaL4/XuVz1B38oXvZWAdMRhLCN2Y2Qxjvtt3yhr4Ow==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvluFuwDeU4930vnro9CBeaDLd0kb0mrWfC5GqeuENsi+4YYiGsjnU3H+XgdNaH20OjEH905kdrbB6IoCWxSDk=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:6a07:: with SMTP id u7mr43819lfu.152.1582743292463; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:54:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E6815976BDDAFB2B06809DEC@PSB> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:54:25 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs
To: Jay Daley <>
Cc: John C Klensin <>, IETF <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b7cf9a059f7f2355"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:55:07 -0000

Hi, Jay,

Greetings to another IETF mailing list explorer. May you live long and
prosper. :-)

Inline ...

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:54 AM Jay Daley <> wrote:

> John
> > On 26/02/2020, at 8:19 PM, John C Klensin <> wrote:
> >
> ....
> > Those are really not arguments to avoid splitting the lists.
> > Instead, they suggest that, if you are going to do such a thing,
> > that you be aware of possible unintended side-effects and figure
> > out a way to mitigate them or even improve things because of
> > them.  Would we benefit from a monthly summary report from you,
> > one that summarizes or details outstanding RFPs, not just
> > plenary reports?  Do we need more explanatory material about why
> > those who subscribe to the IETF-announce list might want to
> > subscribe to the other lists too?  Should subscribing to
> > IETF-Announce automatically put one on the other lists on an
> > opt-out basis rather than requiring people to find them one at a
> > time and subscribe (that would protect people who only want to
> > see the RFP list from being bothered by the irrelevant-to-them
> > traffic on the IETF-Announce but would keep the information for
> > subscribers to the latter constant)?  As we continue to break
> > things out (I definitely see a trend) should we think of
> > IETF-Announce as a list of lists to which people can subscribe
> > (or opt out) selectively if they so choose but whose default is
> > "all announcements"?
> Yes, this is the important issue to consider and a useful set of questions
> to help frame that.
> It’s also a wider problem than announcements/reports - I only realised
> last week that there was an active mtgvenue list, one of many “admin”
> lists, and also a tools-discuss list, one of many “devops(?)” lists.

I pointed out when the discussion about COVID-19 popped up on THIS very
mailing list, that the IESG had created a design team to think about a
massively-remote IETF meeting that became massively remote on short notice,
soon after a similar set of posts on this mailing list when we had the IETF
95 Buenos Aires meeting in 2016, amidst concerns about the Zika virus
(remember the Zika virus?). I believe Stephen Farrell suggested the name,, with this description:
"Manycouches -- List is a design team list to identify issues that would
arise should an IETF meeting ever be held with O(1000) 'remote'

That discussion (with smart people) rain until IETF 98, and I'd thought it
had converged, so wasn't subscribed when Wes and Ted restarted discussion
about a year ago, and that's been pretty active, including discussions
about COVID-19, ever since, but I didn't know it, and many of the points
being made on that mailing list were also being made here.

So, my point is that there are mailing lists that are having discussions of
interest to the community, that it's not easy to for the community to find
out about. And now, I might have told you about one more!

It happens that I'm subscribing to mailing lists at a couple of other SDOs.
One has a "here's a list of all the mailing lists you can subscribe to"
page, and the other one ... doesn't.

> > And so on.  I don't know the answers to any of those questions,
> > but would hope that you (and we) would think about them.
> Will do. I suspect the way forward requires a dose of creativity.

And communication! Darn it ...

Do the right thing, of course.


> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> +64 21 678840
> >
> > best,
> >   john
> >