Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Fri, 13 February 2009 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936C03A6B74 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:58:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HuEAYx4SSjUk for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12793A67E2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 736976BE54F; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:58:44 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Message-Id: <20090213145844.736976BE54F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:58:44 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:58:41 -0000

    > From: Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>

    > What is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here?

Having people's mailboxes explode from ill-considered public pressure
campaigns? At the start, I got as much email in one hour as I often get in a
week.

    > Do we really want to introduce all kinds of complex procedures just
    > based on one incident?

Well, it's not the first time - the FSF pulled the same stunt back in October
of 2007. And no doubt, if it continues to be allowed, it will happen again.

My original proposal was very simple: create one more list as a formal notice
place for LC's, since many of the FSF drive-by posters were saying 'but, but
your LC said send comments here'.

Anyway, nothing is stopping an IETF person from sending email to the IETF list
about something they want to bring up there, so if an LC has something that
really bugs someone in the IETF, they can still send email to the IETF list
about it.

	Noel