IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: facilitators at ietf@ietf.org

IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> Wed, 24 September 2014 12:37 UTC

Return-Path: <chair@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71ACA1A0074 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Q26den8ylgTu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 666241A006D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE16F1E52B1; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Se0_lAAa_hMd; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2:101:e110:e687:a5bd:3987] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2:101:e110:e687:a5bd:3987]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C98131E4048; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: facilitators at ietf@ietf.org
From: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <p06240608d0476e23065e@[99.111.97.136]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:37:45 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2D315631-33E2-418E-93FB-EA56AD09A726@ietf.org>
References: <E6D4B18F-9533-4EE1-A794-526094893D3C@ietf.org> <p06240608d0476e23065e@[99.111.97.136]>
To: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lXUfw93wrdcCnRzVsYB2NPfhrgQ
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 24 Sep 2014 12:37:50 -0000

Randall,

> This seems reasonable.

Thanks.

> My only questions are why a formal role is 
> needed and why only two people?  I would have thought any of the 
> calmer heads could send private notes to people who get caught up in 
> emotions during a mailing list discussion.  Perhaps it works better 
> to have this done by a very small set of officially-designated people.

I think the two (plus me) is sufficient for the task without overly large effort on any of us. But two wasn’t a hard limit, it was a something to get started with.

I’m not sure how formally we should take this. And certainly all of us follow the discussions and put in a lot of effort to keep the discussions going to the right direction, and react when something isn’t right - thank you for that. This “calmer heads” model needs to continue :-) But at the same time, having designated persons who know they should monitor the discussions is helpful, and ensures that we do have some people looking at the entire traffic.

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email