Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Russ Housley wrote:
> This is an individual submission, not a WG document.  So, there is no 
> charter that lists the appropriate mail list for such a discussion.  
> That said, John did take the issue to a mail list.  I know this because 
> someone forward his posting to me.  John did not CC me on the posting, 
> which I interpret as not seeking dialogue at that point.


Hmmm...

Only because it got shot down so quickly and soundly, I'll indulge in some sour 
grapes:  Once upon a time, I suggested that all I-D's be required to specify a 
discussion venue.

What we have here, now, is an example of why that should be a requirement: An 
I-D is for the purpose of discussion. We need to facilitate it's happening.

For rfc2821bis, there was, in fact, an established discussion venue, and it 
long-standing and quite well known to the email community, namely 
[e-mail].

It could only have helped for that venue to have been known to others, 
particularly if folks wanted to pursue a "community" discussion about a concern 
with the draft.

And especially since rfc2821bis development was, in fact, pursued with exactly 
the same rough consensus process a formally-chartered chartered working group.

But your last sentence probably highlights a basic structural disconnect -- for 
want of a better term -- that we ought to think about fixing:  when an 
individual submission is actually the result of a group process, the group ought 
to be identified and direct dialogue with the group ought to take place, not 
depending upon mediation by an author or proto-shepherd.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf