--On Thursday, December 22, 2022 12:08 -0600 Pete Resnick <resnick=40episteme.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes, Martin and Zahed blew this one. Guys, please don't make > everyone in the IETF do a search. > > Having done the search: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-area/c_i1V8-fpPoW5uy > 47VbOQUN0aB8 > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/icWg-mbUgNfY5jq_AGW > FiobUxeM/ > > I would have been simple to put such URLs into the > announcement. > > <soapbox> > It would also be interesting to have separate discussions at > some point about why it is a really bad idea for ADs to be > primary proponents for new work and making their co-ADs be the > responsible AD. The opportunities for conflicts of interest > (or even just the appearance of CoIs) are huge. If an AD can't > find someone else to be the primary proponent, they either > haven't tried hard enough or it's a sign that the work does > not have sufficient support to get going. > </soapbox> +1 to Pete's soapbox. And let me add two of my own: <soapbox 2> Many, perhaps, most, IETF participants are busy and need to make decisions about how to prioritize things we do. Perhaps the expectation that most of us will read a new mailing list announcement is reasonable (I certainly try). But I expect to find a summary paragraph there. Asking me (or others) to go through links and read archived email messages, especially ones that do not provide full of context, is an invitation to having the announcement ignored. As Pete (more politely) pointed out, asking/expecting people to do research before finding those links is an even stronger invitation. And, when something mild or uncomfortable is involved -- with this case of AD and co-AD involvement being an excellent example -- it is far too easy for someone hostile to, or suspicious of, the IETF to look at the combination of disincentives to involvement by anyone but those actively involved and that proponent/ leadership combination as evidence that there is a cabal at work and that the announcement is a cover-up. </soapbox> <rant> The interactions in which a representative of some governmental entity or other SDO claims that the IETF cannot be taken seriously and/or trusted with Internet protocols have not disappeared. I got dragged into one earlier this month. Every time we pick, as a WG or mailing list name, some cute acronym that looks like a name that has an external meaning and that has nothing obvious to do with the topic, those inclined to make such claims have something else to point to when they claim that we act like a bunch of immature children whose processes and conclusion simply cannot be trusted to represent any real consensus. I assume that none of us particularly likes those fights. Although I may be wrong about that, if I'm not, can we please stop providing those who are inclined to attack us with extra ammunition?</rant> john > > pr
