There is a rule on Wikipedia that the IETF would do well to follow here: Don't bite the newcommers. On the other issue, I would like to see all IETF related work take place exclusively on IETF run mailing lists and have the mailing list configured so that everyone who subscribes to the list receives the IPR warning. I would like that to start at the earliest possible moment. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of John C Klensin > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:05 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter; Harald Tveit Alvestrand > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Spam in the IETF's name? > > > > --On Thursday, 20 October, 2005 12:07 +0200 Brian E Carpenter > <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > You'll find the dix list at > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi so it is operating > > under IETF IPR rules and was approved by an Apps AD. > > >> 2) Even if it is, is mass-like mailing (rather than sending to the > >> IETF list, the IETF-announce list, or one-on-one personal > mails) a > >> reasonable way to recruit people? > > > > Well, the meeting mentioned is not an official IETF meeting to the > > best of my knowledge. But I think it's premature to call it > off topic > > for IETF lists. > > Brian, > > There is another issue here and it may call for reexamination > of the criteria for listing of public IETF-related mailing lists. > > We periodically have a discussion about the dangers of RFCs > being mistaken for standards. That discussion has produced > IESG disclaimers on independent-submission RFCs strong enough > as to be read as IETF rejection of ideas presented when there > is no such IETF consensus as well as proposals for even > stronger action. But, at least IMO, there is at least as > much, and probably more, danger in what now appears to be a > trend toward "meeting at IETF" announcements for meetings > that have not gone through the BOF or WG charter/approval process. > > The criteria for such listings now include only conformance > with the IPR rules with everything else being pretty much voluntary. > Should we (or the IESG, or PESCI) be considering asking > external bodies/groups who want to be listed to agree to some > minimum [other] standards of conduct, such as not > representing themselves as IETF activities or connected with > the IETF standards process, either directly or through > hair-splitting language? > > john > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf