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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Thu, 22 April 2021 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 48B593A12F6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.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 Voi-f9UcjHgj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D33E73A12F4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAEC22212 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 18:27:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 18:27:23 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=7Pmrhv5Km5kbbUtBSflj03br/UGofLamAwREtjdTW 3A=; b=sKsHfWl01OjJI4iGvRfOIk1qBcMqb7Gc51CiyEJeLryfcfTWSFfeZDVlN sERJN6PKnk0vos9zdIkmJL+gJfk2Js+XlGHQy0Js8FTO0T3BeeEyKEZSRSz2tQab UBpqnV8Ij0O2VD2zwmvDL9kaHjIdqRYF+zB4rfNo9d0rq1Vvk1iqI/iclAh0NuC5 r/X4mLB2wwuFuapjfb9zkdP7PUMoRYmuK6E4KGH0DexaeROnhk4oCuXFNOX4pNot u+qbm2YmVZIXHac5UD54/5K2pW33JQEWUlAE+qsb/ySSDgp74DSCp9LL5DJrxmXe FqXqot0UCApK1S0FBDNBw9q4rpuLg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:S_iBYOkLcq3LgOsGul38a_1uBAL1ZDLQxMwwKtE01FxOFry9Qq9R8A> <xme:S_iBYF2EBKH8tgsjDotTmgKrvFHyIZE-ivlnUxz48_EhohcTdabv7lAQGXQEP_gl6 CDMSnlXXh5D8w>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdduuddgtdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehhfeutdehfe fgfefghfekhefguefgieduueegjeekfeelleeuieffteefueduueenucfkphepjeefrddu udefrdduieelrdeiudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:S_iBYMpB9EBebzFrzIvJVURIViAf08QQqGPo1Ci0fb0_hywKcOPlTw> <xmx:S_iBYCnrNjIJs_5DJllA-85U_VfOTUtGE5B5i4t7OYG1V7XvhhKv9A> <xmx:S_iBYM26uEziD739M-l6U9onLMUoNJkReNL9tPuCYXI2SZSmpH8Lpg> <xmx:S_iBYH1_Ijy6jipOXLOFHFnJ1mp8jiq40Y-E8qRrNzheL3PKivyDzg>
Received: from [192.168.30.202] (c-73-113-169-61.hsd1.tn.comcast.net [73.113.169.61]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EF470240057 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 18:27:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Stray thoughts on ' Update of IESG statement "Last Call Guidance to the Community"'
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <161859546000.27694.13585496003852397044@ietfa.amsl.com> <6081A148.7070701@btconnect.com> <8279565a-ee50-ab3a-8b97-afc6ca23f4ba@gmail.com> <bf5f53fb-0aad-941d-a683-e7c40165cbac@nostrum.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <7b9e4b99-7bec-39c3-be92-44482829e41b@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 18:27:22 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bf5f53fb-0aad-941d-a683-e7c40165cbac@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HWcXio7qevJM4RxwXv7tr4vBzAA>
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 22:27:32 -0000

On 4/22/21 4:59 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

> 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.

One can credibly make the opposite argument also: that it's hard to find 
the time/patience to scan all of the Last Call discussions that happen, 
just so you can be "in the loop" for the relatively rare Last Call 
discussions that seem important to you.

More generally: one person's "noise" that one can get "lost in" is, to 
another person, a topic of vital importance to the organization.   And 
there's a risk of putting all discussions in narrow silos, which is 
reduced awareness on the part of participants of the breadth of the 
organization's activities and influences, and also (especially with 
gendispatch) reduced awareness of the changes people are trying to make 
to the organization itself.

I understand why people wanted last-call@ but I think it's more of a 
sideways step, maybe slightly backwards also, than a step forward.

What I'd really like to see is the ability to subscribe to Last Call 
discussions on a per-wg, per-topic, or per-area basis. Because I often 
identify particular WGs or discussions that will be interesting to me in 
some way, and would definitely like to review their drafts, but don't 
have enough time to read all of their mailing list traffic.   Of course 
I'm perfectly capable of writing code to filter the various lists and 
rearrange their output to better suit me.    But the way we present this 
information to participants by default does affect how our organization 
works, and not necessarily for the better.

Keith