I am strongly in favor of cc'ing the working group mailing lists for AUTH48 discussions. I've been in too many working groups where a document went into a black hole for months as far as the WG was concerned, after it went to the RFC editor and finally made it through "auth48". And yes, there have been times when subtle changes happened that I felt at the time probably shouldn't have.
Tony
On 2/25/2022, 3:51 AM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Ted Hardie" <rfc-interest-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of 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. While your proposal is
publicly archived, that approach would require any interested
individual to grovel through the archives periodically to see if there
were anything of interest, which makes it easy to miss the discussions
and more difficult to link back to the working group discussions.
