RE: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review ofdraft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt

["Margaret Wasserman" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sam,

With the change that you have proposed below, I would support publication of
this document (and the running of this experiment).

While there are a number of small things we could tweak, I think that would
be a waste of time.  This is good enough as a temporary measure to relieve
the current pressures, and I think that our efforts would be better spent on
working on a real BCP proposal along the lines you have described below.

Margaret 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:43 AM
> To: Margaret Wasserman
> Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review 
> ofdraft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt
> 
> >>>>> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman 
> <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>     Margaret> This document defines an RFC3933 experiment in which we
>     Margaret> would temporarily give the IESG the authority to create
>     Margaret> new mailing list management procedures and enact them.
>     Margaret> The only hard limitations on this authority are that
>     Margaret> posting suspensions cannot run beyond the timeframe of
>     Margaret> the experiment (18 months), nor can the procedures
>     Margaret> prevent anyone from reading an IETF mailing list.  The
>     Margaret> document does not even limit the type of action that the
>     Margaret> IESG can take -- while it only talks about posting
>     Margaret> rights suspensions, this document would allow the IESG
>     Margaret> to define an enact other types of mailing list control
>     Margaret> at their discretion.  It explicitly does not require
>     Margaret> that we use the same procedures on all IETF mailing
>     Margaret> lists, as it explicitly allows the IESG to define
>     Margaret> different procedures for different lists.
> 
> Note that this is the same authority the IESG had for WG 
> mailing lists under RFC 2418.
> 
> However I agree that this is not where we want to be long-term.
> 
>     Margaret> This document does not define any principles that the
>     Margaret> IESG should follow in determining mailing list
>     Margaret> management procedures, nor does it require any type of
>     Margaret> community review or consensus to enact them.  
> 
> I think these are the sorts of details--principles and review 
> requirements--that the community needs to decide on.  I think 
> that will take a while to do, and it is my hope that this 
> experiment may provide input to that process.  Long term 
> though I agree with you that the BCP for mailing list 
> management must provide principles.
> 
> 
>     Margaret> At first, I thought it was the purpose of this document
>     Margaret> to allow the IESG to try out different mailing list
>     Margaret> management procedures on different IETF mailing lists
>     Margaret> for a short period of time, with the goal of picking
>     Margaret> some successful procedures that would later be discussed
>     Margaret> by the community and potentially reflected in our BCPs.
>     Margaret> In other words, I thought that this was a temporary
>     Margaret> measure to address the weaknesses in our current
>     Margaret> procedures and get some experience with alternatives.  I
>     Margaret> still thought that the goal would be to settle on
>     Margaret> well-defined, community-consensus-based procedures by
>     Margaret> then end of this 18 months.  
> 
> That is the goal of this experiment.
> I propose adding text to clarify this fact.
> 
> I propose adding to the end of the last paragraph in the introduction:
> 
>   This experiment is successful if it gives the community useful input
>   on how to design mailing list management process.  It is 
> not expected
>   that this experiment will be adopted in its current form as a
>   permenant BCP.
> 
>     Margaret> At that time, I supported
>     Margaret> this document, because I saw it as a better alternative
>     Margaret> than living with our broken procedures until the
>     Margaret> community could fix them.  I thought that the IESG could
>     Margaret> end this experiment if/when we had community consensus
>     Margaret> on a new set of procedures.
> 
> 
> I still believe that to be true.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry if my comments at the general area meeting were confusing.
> I believe that as a general rule you want the operative part 
> of an experiment to look like a BCP.  I've been pushing 
> fairly hard for this even in this case because this is one of 
> the first experiments we are running.  I do not believe that 
> this current experiment would make a great BCP.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf