Re: BCP 83 PR actions and new media

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

a) +1

b)

At the risk of rightfully getting slapped by John Daley by sending more work
suggestions his way, i wonder if there might be specifically helpfull questions
to be asked in his next community feedback to help such "down-the-road"
re-considerations for BCP 83.

I for once would primarily wonder what it would tell us about the BCP 83
process if a questionaire would show that an overwhelming amount of IETF
participants is not aware and does not care.

Sorry, really just open ended thoughts. I am all out of opinions.

CHeers
    Toerless

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 09:32:21PM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 09/11/2022 18:31, Samuel Weiler wrote:
> > Colleagues,
> > 
> > Do PR actions also apply to other-than-email IETF communications such as
> > Github, Slack, Zulip, and whatever new collaboration technologies we
> > adopt in the future?
> > 
> > I propose that they should and that we should not need to revise BCP 83
> > every time we add a new collaboration technology, and I'm hoping you
> > agree with me.
> > 
> > As history, RFC 3683 was published in March 2004, around the same time
> > the IETF was actively working on Jabber.
> 
> FWIW, I understand the dissonance, but disagree that BCP83
> ought apply to anything other than mailing lists, as of now.
> Chat rooms such as provided by zulip are an integral part of
> meeting attendance (whether remote or in-person) and I don't
> read BCP83 as encompassing controls as to who can attend
> meetings. I do agree that if/when we revise BCP83 we ought
> discuss this topic and make some changes though. (As I said
> in the other thread, I hope we wait a year or more before
> starting work on an update to BCP83.)
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > -- Sam
> > 






-- 
---
[e-mail]