Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs

Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Wed, 26 February 2020 07:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@ietf.org>
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 27F5B3A0FFE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 23:54:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 euzp_S6G5z-i; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 23:54:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.49] (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6C613A0FFA; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 23:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:54:01 +1300
Message-Id: <07BE2FB4-286D-4A35-B17F-629D3FBB7308@ietf.org>
References: <E6815976BDDAFB2B06809DEC@PSB>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <E6815976BDDAFB2B06809DEC@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17D50)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XyrNt1y8Gk1t5cganMWxZo6BKqQ>
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: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:54:05 -0000

John


> On 26/02/2020, at 8:19 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
...

> Those are really not arguments to avoid splitting the lists.
> Instead, they suggest that, if you are going to do such a thing,
> that you be aware of possible unintended side-effects and figure
> out a way to mitigate them or even improve things because of
> them.  Would we benefit from a monthly summary report from you,
> one that summarizes or details outstanding RFPs, not just
> plenary reports?  Do we need more explanatory material about why
> those who subscribe to the IETF-announce list might want to
> subscribe to the other lists too?  Should subscribing to
> IETF-Announce automatically put one on the other lists on an
> opt-out basis rather than requiring people to find them one at a
> time and subscribe (that would protect people who only want to
> see the RFP list from being bothered by the irrelevant-to-them
> traffic on the IETF-Announce but would keep the information for
> subscribers to the latter constant)?  As we continue to break
> things out (I definitely see a trend) should we think of
> IETF-Announce as a list of lists to which people can subscribe
> (or opt out) selectively if they so choose but whose default is
> "all announcements"?

Yes, this is the important issue to consider and a useful set of questions to help frame that. 

It’s also a wider problem than announcements/reports - I only realised last week that there was an active mtgvenue list, one of many “admin” lists, and also a tools-discuss list, one of many “devops(?)” lists. 

> And so on.  I don't know the answers to any of those questions,
> but would hope that you (and we) would think about them.

Will do. I suspect the way forward requires a dose of creativity. 

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
+64 21 678840

> 
> best,
>   john
>