Date: 28 Aug 2025 17:42:33 -0000
Message-ID: <20250828174233.142131.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: mod-discuss@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: mod-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <LV8PR11MB8536A69CEADBB7F2E96EE31CB53BA@LV8PR11MB8536.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID-Hash: O33LPKHTNXPXLZ2R6AHXPCHEQGSCUJUC
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BMod-discuss=5D_Re=3A_WG_Last_Call=3A_draft-ietf-modpod-group-pr?=
 =?utf-8?q?ocesses-10_=28Ends_2025-09-08=29?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mod-discuss/ddZugMc6LaBjU48N14oBiEuH_Go>

Rob Wilton (rwilton) writes:
> if someone repeated makes the same point that drowns out other useful
> discussion

Hmmm, really? Can you give a few links to examples of IETF mailing-list
threads that were drowned out, so that people can understand concretely
what happened and consider potential solutions? Did the list server run
out of disk space?

By default I would think that any repetition of the same objection
reflects a failure by the chairs of whichever WG to maintain a chart of
the objections that had been raised already.

As a concrete example of such a failure, having this WG proceed to last
call suggests to observers that all objections have been addressed---but
that's not true: for example, there was no response to Keith Moore's
point about Challenger. Observers can't find a chart of the objections;
they're forced to dredge through list archives. Here I am suffering
through highlighting the Challenger point again, exactly because the
point was improperly ignored. The root-cause fix for the repetition is
to track objections (as in other standards-development organizations),
not to shoot the messenger.

> However, given that we have a WG with an approved charter I believe
> that we are well past the point of debating or deciding whether
> anything needs to be done.

The charter does _not_ mandate censorship. Everything the charter asks
for can be met by purely advisory actions. This would also eliminate the
concerns about damaging IETF's openness and silencing minorities.

---D. J. Bernstein