{trimmed the -announce out. Not sure what list this discussion should occur on}
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for considering the transparency question seriously. I believe,
> however, that you are missing a more obvious implementation: cc'ing the
> working group mailing lists for AUTH48 discussions. That keeps the
> information related to a single document in a common place, which makes
> it easier to actually follow the threads of work than it would be if it
> were in a dedicated list.
This works for me.
AD sponsored documents do not necessarily have lists, but I don't think the
two solutions are mutually exclusive.
> You may be concerned that this approach would lead to the working
> groups' members jumping into the last call discussions, since those
> lists are not read only. You can avoid them doing so directly by
> channeling the AUTH48 mail to the mailing through a send-only address
> which does not receive mail.* That would not stop a mailing list member
> from reaching out to one of the parties individually, but your proposed
> implementation doesn't stop that either.
I also have the concern that the RFC-editor could get confused about comments, or
that the thread could wind up re-litigating something that already reached
rough consensus. I think that this is the experiement worth doing though.
With this send-only address on the list, we still have the problem of authors
replying, don't we? They write to the ML, and then people argue with them.
(And the authors, probably on the list, get yet another copy of the email. Oh well.)
I know that the RFC-editor has been using lists cXXXX when dealing with
clusters. I thought that this was a good thing, and maybe that could help
solve the technical challenges.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
