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
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
