Re: [Rfced-future] Thank you and closure of the RFC Future Program

<as individual>
I think it would be improper to have any substantive discussion of RSWG issues on this list.

That means there is no venue for RSWG issues until the new list is created and announced.  I think that’s fine.

I think this list should be shut down.  

Brian

> On Jul 8, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> 
> On 7/8/22 12:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Friday, July 8, 2022 11:57 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
>> <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
>>> On 7/8/22 7:02 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks, all. Will this e-mail list be deactivated?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We did not discuss that (and it's a good question).  As you
>>>> know the IETF is very good at not closing lists if people
>>>> find them useful. Considering there is a new list being set
>>>> up for the new WG, is this one still useful for any
>>>> reason?  So how about this:
>>>> 
>>>> Does anyone think the list should remain open and useful for
>>>> some purpose?  If so, ideally state why too and I can take
>>>> that feedback back to the IAB.  Silence by everyone will
>>>> likely result in closing the list (IMHO, not IAB-HO).
>>> 
>>> I see no reason to keep this list open - our work is done here
>>> and attention will now move to the RSWG (once that list is
>>> announced).
>> Agreed, but that is, IMO, the other piece of the answer, which
>> is that this list should not be shut down until the RSWG one is
>> created and announced. 
> 
> Hopefully that will happen soon.
> 
> Given that the work of the Program is complete, discussing substantive matters on this list could be confusing, but I suppose there's no harm in doing so temporarily. I leave that to the Program chairs or IAB.
> 
>> If the RSWG is simply going to use
>> rfc-interest, than that should be said and it would be ok to
>> shut this list down as soon as convenient. On the other hand,
>> if the RSWG is not going to use rfc-interest for its list, one
>> of its first activities should be defining, presumably in
>> consultation with the RPC, just exactly where the boundary
>> between its list and rfc-interest falls and update the
>> descriptions of both list to reflect that explanation.
> 
> I suppose that's all up to the new RSWG chairs, whomever they may be. I doubt we'll need to wait all that long in any case.
> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org <mailto:Rfced-future@iab.org>
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>