Re: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review of draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt

Sam,

we have some differences of opinion on how these things work, and how 
they are supposed to work.
But I'll try to be constructive.

I think that in any experiment that involves giving someone the power to 
set procedures, there MUST be some words on how those procedures are set 
(the metaprocedures).

What your -01 draft currently says is:

The IESG MUST inform the community in a public statement of any
procedures for mailing list management approved under this
experiment. Such a statement should include the description of the
procedure and the description of mailing lists to which it applies or
an indication that it applies to all IETF mailing lists. The IESG is
encouraged to last call procedures it is considering approving under
this experiment. While such last calls are encouraged, they are not
required. The reason that the last call is not required is that
under RFC 2418, no last call is required; there seems to be no reason
to have a procedure more strict than that proposed in RFC 2418.

Sanctions made under this memo may be appealed using the procedures
outlined in [RFC2026].

I would add to this (suitably wordsmithed):

The IESG MUST make the procedures for mailing list management public
The IESG MUST make proposed changes public at least 14 days before 
enacting them.
The IESG is NOT required to assert that there is IETF consensus for a 
change in procedures.

(the last also means that I doubt that the term "last call" is useful 
here - a "request for input", like the one the IAB uses for its 
documents, is more in line with the procedures you are proposing)

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf