Comments on draft-lear-bcp83-replacement-00

[S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Eliot, All,

I read draft-lear-bcp83-replacement-00.  Its purpose is  to change 
the procedure for the IETF discussion list.  The rationale given is 
the recent happenings on the Last Call mailing list (which is a 
different mailing list).  That seems a bit odd.

I'll mention the following as there seems to be different 
interpretation of the word "moderation".  RFC 6279 was issued in 
response to an issue pertaining to moderation.  There is a definition 
of what moderation means on Page 4.  There used to be moderation, 
most likely because of how the mailing list manager works.

I already commented about the executive director (Section 1.3).  My 
comment was not about the person filling in that position.  That 
section explains the reason for having a jury.  The authors then 
argue for having the executive director handle complaints and make 
decisions.  I suggest rewriting the last sentence in the first 
paragraph or else putting that in an appendix.

Section 2.6 states that there shall either be a working group 
announcement or an IETF-wide announcement.  Why would an entire 
country being interested in some infraction which occurred in some 
small town (a working group)?

Unwanted mail (Section 3) is currently handled by the IETF LLC (I did 
not verify the details).  I would stay out of that.

The visibility (Section 4) is a positive step as it allows people 
interested in such matters to see whether the policy is effective or not.

I'll mention some other points if there is interest in moving the 
draft forward.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy