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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 22 April 2021 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 A16833A0AB2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.28
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 4txu255UpGs3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 CC8793A0AAF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Zephyrus.local (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 13MKxk1S096664 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:59:47 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1619125187; bh=4V23/+Rpo3uV7YI9xFRB91Qp5mpSof+7mAgXcu/vO5M=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=KWhP0aKSMjxkCke4uP5qKEaex2PRRfKs+8RYUML53l82HEOl7xTA6RbUUjFzh2x7N IUGrQ+cxyktxcvTbmnz9NSZ8t+/+AxSGcqzSrLWqbih8yGUBGlTGWAYhpEaQqIjXwh v6x80OnAQi4h22uUbmz+kuFG2Q9GbfDjLqDeYtSI=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be Zephyrus.local
Subject: Re: Stray thoughts on ' Update of IESG statement "Last Call Guidance to the Community"'
To: 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>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <bf5f53fb-0aad-941d-a683-e7c40165cbac@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:59:41 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8279565a-ee50-ab3a-8b97-afc6ca23f4ba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/F9PcxtuXB6aJzUg4BAS4eqXFhpQ>
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: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 21:00:03 -0000

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.

/a