meta-list (was Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO)
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 13 September 2018 03:24 UTC
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 62646130E10 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 20:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=gB4JPyPs; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=nV94L7yN
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 RknKFehJr91X for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 20:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96BF4130DEC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 20:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FCEBBD156 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 03:24:02 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1536809042; bh=Lts3EApfN4/Z2syC61/PMZIAPWftSh0vGKuWt3NmmGs=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=gB4JPyPsuJscdxiCXiPNpf8WVdy2lmgpwf0/WIkAIZm/uf2wHqeobtLwoi+bVE4Yf hubL8yKNnMhyph+sZYZNTJTwCxJ19C//gMSUgQeG8AxFS9iXx5vdWtv/mCYfVxN1uW JawOn7iu2vaOrx9RYVF6an0FrakamvMHnMw1ib7o=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nmAOJuGgW6mH for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 03:24:00 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:23:55 -0300
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1536809040; bh=Lts3EApfN4/Z2syC61/PMZIAPWftSh0vGKuWt3NmmGs=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nV94L7yNejAI9zwJ9Bim/H2hgtnrt1puwAzJR7teazGfnlibU0xzvlKb+pSppijl6 KfLM78veJJhav2Y/io9thzX1FnczxhsMX2aI9B6eSAZ/Ko9xTFwi0HY3M+Pfwqln1U ElKvNiEzitPimn3VbLetEZnMo2cPtf9UAcju8HqU=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: meta-list (was Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO)
Message-ID: <20180913032353.ctctskr75xoh35sc@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <153678592168.9395.10391346115284210918.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC4RtVCe_Kp7oBg6NewiOvBqRZ9=QKeYZydErxmmUrsjyW4Mnw@mail.gmail.com> <60607ea9-1aba-6512-4a52-b7c8e09c91ba@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <60607ea9-1aba-6512-4a52-b7c8e09c91ba@cs.tcd.ie>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nsJur7fUbEJeTWOokUvvo6gkY1A>
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: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 03:24:36 -0000
Dear colleagues, On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 03:55:09AM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Only other thing to note is that this happens so > often (new list for who knows what) that maybe the > tooling's a bit wrong and encourages folks to ok > or ask for lists without considering that others > don't have the same (or any) context. While I think that is part of a possible explanation, I will note some other things that may be leading to these meta-whether-list-should-be discussions: 1. People try to discuss a draft in a place where others don't want to hear about it, at which point they are told that getting a list is easy and they should just go do that. Not unreasonably, they do, and given the story they've been told it is hard to justify saying no. 2. IETFers complain that "the leadership" is doing too much, making too many decisions, or otherwise being to gatekeeper-y. If we send others constant negative feedback about them turning down things they might have accepted with a few adjustments, their natural response will be quite naturally to approve more things, particularly when it is relatively low cost such as the creation of a mailing list. (It is worth observing that the combination of 1 and 2 means that people who are approving lists might be thought of as appearing in a Joseph Heller book.) 3. IETF has in fact become rather gatekeeper-y. There used to be _lots of_ lists that were not hosted on ietf.org, and that required absolutely no permission from anyone to get set up (you could do it yourself on your own box). This turned out to have some occasionally negative consequences (for instance, that a long-lived WG could rely on a list that could be deleted out from under the WG chairs while they were flying to, say, China). Now, it might be that people are treating the creation of a mailing list as a sort of proto-proto-chartering decision, rather like the way BoFs have become such a Big Deal, but I am not sure that outcome is desirable. It might be worth asking whether everyone who might care about the IETF really needs to know what every @ietf.org mailing list is for. If you don't know whether something is worth following, and there's no history in the archive, what are the chances that learning about it later is going to be fatal for your ability to say something useful about the work? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
- meta-list (was Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Barry Leiba
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Stephen Farrell
- Re: meta-list (was Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: C… Melinda Shore
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Eric Rescorla
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Barry Leiba
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Carsten Bormann
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO John C Klensin
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Stephen Farrell
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Eric Rescorla
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Michael StJohns
- Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO Sean Turner