Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 18 April 2019 03:05 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 5C0581201B0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 20:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 0OiwMgjUTxJY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 20:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 439021200CE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 20:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x3I34uuQ015007 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 17 Apr 2019 23:04:59 -0400
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 22:04:56 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
Message-ID: <20190418030456.GB70338@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190405085139.0d5c39b0@elandnews.com> <54510B49-175B-4CE6-9319-1F9A4803940E@cooperw.in> <033d01d4f52f$c6f2dca0$54d895e0$@olddog.co.uk> <BB40F115-46E8-4EF3-ABDE-15ABB33B4ACA@akamai.com> <C11980900F520E0EFCC83CEB@PSB> <98e75e64-f381-7788-aea2-31218eeaebfc@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <98e75e64-f381-7788-aea2-31218eeaebfc@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rW5e_XK9aqoYuSRhlKzWVtWGk2U>
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, 18 Apr 2019 03:05:03 -0000

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 08:38:44AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> It would certainly be ironic if a proposal to alleviate some
> of the disadvantages of remote participation couldn't be be
> discussed by remote participants in multiple time zones.
> 
> With all due respect, etc. etc., I've always understood that
> discussion by email was intended to alleviate exactly that
> problem, and this list *is* the IETF plenary. So exactly who
> has been disenfranchised from this discussion who would be
> enfranchised by a physical or virtual BOF?

Taking this question at face value: technically, "no one", since membership
in the list is open modulo posting actions or SAA actions (I think there
may be one or two of the latter still active, hence scare quotes).
But in practice, I hear from the grapevine that many people are unwilling
to subscribe to or participate in discussions solely on this list, because
the volume of traffic is large and the perceived signal/noise ratio
insufficient to merit the time commitment.

Having a dedicated discussion forum other than this one is both in keeping
with the list charter and would provide a lower barrier to participation
from those who have stayed away from the general discussion list but do
care about remote participation.  It is fair to debate the cardinality of
that set, if you have a different perception than me, of course.

-Ben