Hi Hannes, Mike, Ned, and others, I do think there is a transparency risk that is related to DISCUSSes and appeals that has to be considered. However, RFC 8875 does discuss how to address that, though perhaps with a focus on DISCUSSes and appeals, in Section 3.2. I have a bit of sympathy with Joel on not wanting to bifurcate conversations. It’s not a matter of gray hair to me, but simply a matter of wanting to participate in formative discussions. If they’re not happening on email, then one needs to know where they are happening, and be able to get in the game. I don’t think there’s a perfect solve for that, but it seems to me that the concern is somewhat obviated if WGs virtually meet often. There is, of course, a convenience tradeoff there... Eliot > On 8 Jan 2021, at 13:28, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 1/7/21 9:27 AM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Speaking as 30 year IETF participant, including four years as an apps >> AD and many stints as a WG chair, this is not now and has never been >> my experience. I could not even begin count the number of times I've >> had to review mailing list discussions as part of reviewing a draft. > > If the document you are supposed to be reviewing does not give enough context so that you have to review the mailing list discussions then there is clearly something wrong with the document. > That should have been your review comment. > > Ciao > Hannes > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
