Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 26 February 2020 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B6E3A09DB for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 04:58:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XWnrc5Az_XaE for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 04:58:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0970D3A09D8 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 04:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277B638982 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:57:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3504D733 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:58:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
Subject: Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:58:56 -0500
Message-ID: <13032.1582721936@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:59:00 -0000

Jay Daley <> wrote:
    > It would useful for me to understand why subscribing to rfp-announce is
    > not an option?  In the context of the IETF’s high usage of mailing
    > lists, this seems like a particularly low barrier to entry.

I think that Brian would like to see the awarding as part of a bigger IETF
LLC community oversight process.  Something that many people do in an
informal way, and while there are a half-dozen usual suspects, there are
probably another could dozen observers who aren't quite aware that they are
interested.   Some people just want to look out the kitchen window to see
that the kids are still in the yard.

The ietf-lastcall split has been good for ietf-announce volume, but I also
wonder if is the right place for followup and/or for community
engagement with the ietf-llc.   maybe there is another list needed. (maybe
there is already one I know not of)
I'm not sure here exactly: the IETF-LLC would post it's agenda and minutes to
such a list, but it would be open.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-