Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Thu, 12 September 2019 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 80CE6120128 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Kc-mVdOB4ku3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x233.google.com (mail-oi1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2FB6120152 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x233.google.com with SMTP id 12so6598193oiq.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Y9lBtQCSrufghiM/RhFt77nAFc+fPkHOwozowIQl9dk=; b=cWoXUnn6NXOe89t/qJ5RKpHrHnvfNRMgjBGqdNr8N5PUYoj959h2UTOKCUf4zB4X51 B5qkA9CtKQFvMp1mZYp0NmqVpOFYu/30T/pIw4/SpFjTu7XJ+I1B1/aauA3CXyz89NIR jvbbWk+B5BR3+sVB7k/bb+bF3gDWLoeeWbK5aTgul2yeYMs49s5cWjI3Lrqiww06C7qy zhPQ9cv06tZdQi0YaKJ+dWGDaZUY31bxzOZJZOcJQ4pXlxpfmhoxnMqYaNczQRkooFIA oy7qLr1ofkUyFLdyVDIkXP6PYAdd0r8A512m/FPfK47h7tOJJKCI0GZ+mGmVPnzQcDdE IG8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Y9lBtQCSrufghiM/RhFt77nAFc+fPkHOwozowIQl9dk=; b=MuHoF6wOAfAJ2PqUAegQYC0p0ggBiBluWXpuIh2TE4rPszjKRahPdAJBfcl+E4UrOB cTX1oa+cTQBh+FnPtVTNb+ggwEp1yyffo3A+AqkOAQXqD5cMevEuoriwuXUhNSArIOsl 81GEI0NKl2gZpzwsCev6TxP8sr1ZcSNdIOWARwQyXe3qF5nKAlodMA+4s67KDyL8NLko +GfADJam1GYXp3kM/e+nEVCiHDAVvzDUPkG//FdR8JnedwRokb1a8Z0DkCnP+Ov+aFCZ OiUuJ0kHEFqkjBEaHulX4OitUzhDOZ4XPWe74EwLdWUKteZznHnJ+3W6VChQJia9fk+X 5ovQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXH0g7CrhB0K1IUitxjK45PSLbl+ySU7NkvJMoLRuqMBoE8nUd/ lNkXtQo1/qbm55OiM/25JIZ4NYYFWOyVrrvD1DIeFA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzwGQbdo8lxM1UHVweStjR87IpGMo1hg0jJZQYdOd1FWZTfAoz1+skqe8l8fGYHTwSggoV7XeVlwu/5z2Ny4Go=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:cc0b:: with SMTP id c11mr1157221oig.169.1568309525807; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJKvdoy9MtzHMwq-Ew-EJoUs0V8t+y01FL-E5r3xdyRemQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO47U63Q4ekPuEvEdWbAzw2gefPsrKuET3_U=e+1vxumw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBO47U63Q4ekPuEvEdWbAzw2gefPsrKuET3_U=e+1vxumw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:31:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL02cgSiU3F4x2oeoq+bUoxci9Hj02Zczkg86y6oL3Epr4LOzA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002f1fcb05925e8428"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pED34f0kVj_v62HmrFjc27lYILI>
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, 12 Sep 2019 17:32:10 -0000

+1

I have no comments on this.  You even answered my usual question about
"experiments", namely what the success criteria are.  Ship it.

--Richard

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:07 AM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:

> +1. This seems like a great idea.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:14 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>;
> wrote:
>
>> As we discussed in the plenary session at IETF 105 in Montréal, some
>> community members have suggested moving document last-call discussions
>> onto a dedicated "last-call" mailing list, and off of the general
>> <ietf@ietf.org>; list.  The latter is a high-volume list with a lot of
>> varied discussion, and some think that it would be useful to separate
>> the general discussion from the last-call discussion, to allow people
>> to choose which discussions (or both) to follow.  In the IETF 105
>> plenary, support was expressed for that separation.
>>
>> The IESG agrees, and wants to try an experiment to that end.  We
>> propose to create <last-call@ietf.org>; and to direct last-call
>> comments and discussions there (the last-call announcements would
>> still go to <ietf-announce@ietf.org>;, with "reply-to" set to the new
>> list).  That list would be monitored by volunteers recruited by the
>> IETF Chair, and digressions would be nudged back to <ietf@ietf.org>;,
>> while we would ask people having last-call discussions on this list to
>> please move them to the new list.  We would get the tools team
>> involved so that the distribution lists for directorate and
>> review-team reviews would be updated appropriately.
>>
>> Our plan is to create the new list and pre-subscribe everyone who is
>> subscribed to <ietf@ietf.org>; at that time.  Of course, anyone could
>> unsubscribe to either or both lists immediately or later, but we think
>> that doing it this way would minimize the likelihood that people would
>> miss important stuff because of the move, and folks can choose what
>> they prefer from there.
>>
>> After six months, we would do an initial evaluation, including getting
>> feedback from the community, to see how the experiment is working.  If
>> it seems worth continuing we would do so, and at a point that the
>> community decides that the experiment is a success (should it so
>> decide), we would start an update to BCP 45 to formally move the
>> location for last-call discussions, and we would update the 2007 IESG
>> Statement on Last Call Guidance.
>>
>> We invite comments, here, on this plan, by the end of September. As I
>> say above, we've heard support from the community for the general
>> idea, and we'd like to make sure this direction is what the community
>> wants.
>>
>> Barry, for the IESG
>>
>>