Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

I agree with others who have asked the SAA to retract his recommendation 
to move the discussion.

It's not easy to think of a topic more important to the future of IETF 
than the manner in which its output is published.   To suggest that this 
topic should not be discussed in IETF, but should instead be discussed 
in a venue outside of IETF, defies all logic.

It also prejudices the outcome.   One of the ways that US politicians 
manipulate elections, is by making it more difficult for people that 
they think will not vote in their favor, to vote.   For instance, they 
may reduce the number of polling places in areas that are known to be 
sympathetic to the other side. Forbidding discussion of management of 
the RFC series on the IETF list and insisting that it be discussed 
elsewhere, reminds me of this.   It basically says "if you want to 
discuss this topic, you need to jump through additional hoops", with the 
awareness that few people will do so.   I understand the need for 
someone to keep discussion civil, but I don't think it's appropriate for 
that person to prejudice the outcome of discussions - especially 
discussions that are vital to the organization's future.

More broadly, the IETF is a group of volunteers, and it's essential for 
an organization that relies on the creative contributions of volunteers 
to have trust in its leadership. The open plenary at face-to-face 
meetings is one of the mechanisms that has helped promote such trust, 
and the IETF list has traditionally served a similar function for online 
discussion and between meetings.   Trying to move a controversial 
discussion off of the IETF list has the effect of undermining the trust 
that several successions of leaders have spent decades cultivating. 
That's not to say that the IETF list could not be forked - but not 
without discussion, and not over a single topic of broad importance.

Keith