Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Jay,

My understanding has always been that every active IETF participant needs to subscribe
to ietf-announce because that (and only that) conveys what every participant needs
to know, and doesn't convey anything that is optional to know. Things like
- Last Calls
- WG charters for comment
- IESG decisions
- RFC publications
- Meeting announcements
- NomCom announcements
- "other announcements of interest to the IETF community"

All other mailing lists are optional.

I think that significant actions by IETF LLC belong there too. People need to
know about these even if it makes them yawn. John Klensin gave some reasons
why; my reason is one word: transparency.

Clearly, people who are potential bidders will be happy to join the dedicated list,
so the message to the ietf-announce list could be minimal.

Subject: RFP for IETF Cookie services
Body: IETF-LLC has published a Request for Proposals. Please see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfp-announce/ for details.

Regards
   Brian

On 26-Feb-20 18:22, Jay Daley wrote:
> Brian 
> 
> (sent from my
> 
>> On 26/02/2020, at 4:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jay,
>>
>> I fully understand the arguments for this change. However, I think it would be good to continue to send a *summary* of the CFP messages to ietf-announce, for community awareness. Ditto for the "Award of contract" messages.
> 
> Those are two of the three types of RFP message sent to IETF-announce and coincidentally two of the three types planned for rfp-announce (the third one being “Here’s the Q&A for this RFP”).  In other words, I don’t want rfp-announce to grow on volume. 
> 
> It would useful for me to understand why subscribing to rfp-announce is not an option?  In the context of the IETF’s high usage of mailing lists, this seems like a particularly low barrier to entry. 
> 
> Jay
>