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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 16 September 2019 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 9F1FA120807 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 ETX_8o1BwrLq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (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 A0EA4120100 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id f5so210537ljg.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2v2T64MfO3RgzALW2kkyOno/Vk+aZ7b+RP6q68nlqaQ=; b=dpA3XocvRaPnxtVo31DS+iK8/O1+QMushykOcrPNQPQ3kJGaM6g1iypMDGqrAZBi1z xdqXr+B5kCVbHWLGhfsNyXeva+MEWmVHb+oz76JYZVyB1uYfbkcobbwwZnNiKdjjunNu 6CAEs3cc1wgQUXxZm0z2jpxn+ZZ0aUsLIBnB+G6rl71Ay2Y3pjO3in4q+eqgcMT6pcWb eZUwkdcVzSiWOR+y1G1QOhmF2x+4FFJgpqSNZOxeG2co6WGKQ3bI11oupKfLuWDs0cjF MFsk3BjNinFYwVey4XVRgvlonW2rprO2XK2WpGr7Kqqe7UGffYPfglGQp/4HeDBjwcs2 aIXw==
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=2v2T64MfO3RgzALW2kkyOno/Vk+aZ7b+RP6q68nlqaQ=; b=DK/K5Wr8jAO3BDlJJ9Ql0qxIBdMaVe1bj0E5OcXwoArpWT13rBNmMtIMRNjCsGPcDo Zy0b/YqSHVhuQMX/tj8rl32A5+p25CMbbixE+LjveSuqWaeEOhkYO8zqa758N8yL4s01 oOXmVzogAzSmGyUTdL1XO0baOilafQPZ21pB7RoYqpUcnCwVyZQhTI43u4xpHeDZvIbN lchJmG6cVYK2WE9zQ/AD4htBsUBvhg/GYhzISdrAHTMc8QF+Eph8Wa8qKdxFYtwXEOa+ KkMU2UhtamP7LWKnyXLBjJ5zKipN3rzUuy1qLDkktZD2E+pjBHzs2Jl0PnKwB6VbgdPI ut8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWK1hmyDLlkUFtiD++g+6MSyi7Kai9ylP3oRsRG6CpblD8LKl8d 5dLfInfVYK/57ut+Oi2yi3rx+Szuj2AIONqmkfhAdQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwW/Gw4fziG63zWgL45OBwu+CDbImnC5OIz0+pzdujKvFaysL+I17QrhRcstykCy/gAMfUNHA9RT116s3ADyPM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9750:: with SMTP id f16mr3207171ljj.239.1568600971847; Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJKvdoy9MtzHMwq-Ew-EJoUs0V8t+y01FL-E5r3xdyRemQ@mail.gmail.com> <EDBBBD9628A18755F4366D0B@PSB> <CALaySJ+cR0k=HpCvf5cSN4ony9zvzVeOZc=Qqot=cQN=jJF2fA@mail.gmail.com> <E032E905-E395-46CF-8C56-C3EBB8E20C9C@gmail.com> <CABcZeBO0NbEVQ67j8ZRgKXmjT3JeLFAgnSpfMA8CqAg1dp_j5w@mail.gmail.com> <073FAB7287FB558ECCED2CE0@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <073FAB7287FB558ECCED2CE0@PSB>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:28:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMegPn+hJuANAz9-iqon9n6R0Tsno8ECPe0MzEabDKf2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b8c3ab0592a25fcf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EWJUWZ2rVbtesqhQNt8lSJF0Slg>
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:29:35 -0000

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:45 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>; wrote:

>
>
> --On Friday, September 13, 2019 13:09 -0700 Eric Rescorla
> <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:
>
> >> I am thinking that both lists should have the same
> >> membership, that is, one can't unsubscribe from only one.
> >> This would preserve the broad community review of last calls
> >> and for community discussions, but still allow separate
> >> discussions.
> >>
> >
> > I disagree with this. Part of the value proposition here is to
> > allow people to engage with last calls and avoid the...
> > unpleasantness... which is the ietf@ list.
>
> Ekr,
>
> I almost agree.  There have certainly been weeks lately in which
> I would classify the bulk of the traffic on the main IETF list
> as unpleasant and have wished that much of hadn't reached me.
> However, we claim that the basis of what we do is "IETF
> consensus".  Today, someone who opts out of the IETF list
> essentially opts out of that consensus process no matter how
> active they might be in, e.g., particular WGs.


I'm not sure on what basis you make that claim, but I don't agree. The
discussion in the WG is part of the consensus proces.

-Ekr

If we split the
> list and the membership of the two lists diverges, I wonder if
> honesty and transparency require us to adjust our vocabulary to
> indicate, e.g., "consensus of those who chose to participate in
> the IETF's broad final review process".
>
>    best,
>     john
>
>