Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 03 December 2021 23:06 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64303A0827 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 15:06:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 npWo2ouBoq-h for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 15:06:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4311A3A0822 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 15:06:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.22.50]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 1B3N6SHJ017262 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Dec 2021 15:06:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1638572800; x=1638659200; i=@elandsys.com; bh=A4cF2b6YI8QzJk28/x4Y2o7t63SdTUP66AiAGjG4A+M=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=p6VrPbIU7cUZx5euAvC6bK/4xQ9uAHPaJAf01bmvoksVPaRz4g6vJcg2YM/IE1Voo wKTGlxjUwTMDfdms3wMsqShwmu0RPDJo2NqSM5RV9ikMlmE2d+KW35ZBnftHDXjpdx j/8AjJ1Ddj2dvkn8rpUvzv75yMNEEViGZfH3PtHk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20211203142600.0b79bc80@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 15:03:26 -0800
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, last-call@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4196CD66A26F135B15BB79A5B59F9@BY5PR11MB4196.nampr d11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <163465875866.13316.15860075014903480611@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20211020123310.186d0548@elandnews.com> <BY5PR11MB4196CD66A26F135B15BB79A5B59F9@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/xQoWLovElvnS80ZPgHquAwJs3Mw>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 23:06:52 -0000
Hi Rob, At 12:13 PM 22-11-2021, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: >On the SAA issue, I have responded more generally on a separate thread. Thanks for the response. I'll comment inline. >My interpretation is that the latitude is meant to the refer to the >topics that may be discussed. But I regard the text in the abstract >as just giving an overview and the "normative" text that defines >what is/isn't allowed as being in section 2, and the parts of >section 1 that apply to all mailing lists. Please see item (3) of >the other email that I just sent proposing some specific text about >how the moderation is done. > >Would that proposed text in that email be sufficient to address you >concerns? Or do you think that further changes are warranted, and >if you so, please can you propose concrete changes? As background information, I had a very high count on Last-Calls for well over a decade. You proposed the following sentence: "They are encouraged to take into account the overall nature of the postings by an individual and whether particular postings are an aberration or typical." Will that be taken into consideration or does the change of mailing list for Last-Calls reset the clock? I gather that you are aware that it is up to the author to propose text. I don't mind doing that as long in specific cases. >I'm always hopefully that we can get ietf@ back into a shape where >more of the community regard it as holding useful discussion and >decide to rejoin. But either way, one could argue that the meaning >of community in this sense refers to those individuals who choose to >be subscribed to the ietf@ mailing list. I have been musing over "community" for some time. I unfortunately did not have time to write about it as it has been a bit busy at my end. There is some new text which you proposed: "... the related guidance from section 1 that applies to all mailing lists." I don't think that a charter for the IETF mailing list should apply for other mailing lists, e.g. a WG mailing list. A WG mailing list is operated under the WG Charter. You also proposed the following text: "The IETF list moderators are intended to establish a self-moderation function on the community, by the community. The IETF Chair therefore should not appoint a list moderator who is serving in a NomCom-appointed IETF leadership position." My reading of that text is that a person serving in a "NomCom-appointed IETF leadership position" is not part of the "community". I read your response to Adrian. If I am not mistaken, he referred to what is known as "affected parties". There are 1787 subscribers on @ietf and 81 subscribers on @gendispath. The assumption that the affected parties are on gendispatch mailing list is, in my opinion, incorrect. I'll leave it to the Area Directors to consider the following question: is it appropriate to state that there is "consensus" when the affected parties are not included in the loop? Regards, S. Moonesamy
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-e… Lloyd W
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-e… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-e… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-e… STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-e… Rob Sayre
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-e… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… Paul Wouters
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… Keith Moore
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-e… Keith Moore
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-e… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… Keith Moore
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… Michael StJohns
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… Keith Moore
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… Christian Huitema
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… tom petch
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… Paul Wouters
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… tom petch
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… tom petch
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… S Moonesamy
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis… S Moonesamy