Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting

"JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:18:14 +0100

I think we all are in agreement except on an idea Eudardo Mendez gave 
me. I will rephrase it as "if someting tastes as a WG, smells like a 
WG, its charter should be approved like for a WG". The non-WG list is 
only subject to the approbation of an AD. This opens the door to too 
many possible contention and COI suspicions. Logic and ethic calls 
for non-WG list receiving WG authority rights to be subject to WG 
creation cycle (obviously far faster). I think it should result from 
a simple change in the registration form and page display. It will 
say the status of the non-WG list approval and details. To be on the 
list an AD approval is enough. To get full WG priviledges the non-WG 
list will need to have the "IAB reviewed", "IESG approved",  Area and 
ADs, etc.

A last problem is the obsolescence of a non-WG list. I think it 
should be automatic. When the Registry or the RFC founding the 
interest of the non-WG list is obsoleted, the IAB and IESG stamps are 
automatically removed. This permits the list to continue operating. 
But it is no more liste delegated duties and rights.

jfc

At 18:56 21/02/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Eric,

Gray, Eric wrote:
...
        ... there is a need to define who
is what, he has a valid point.  I moderate the MPLS mailing list, but
there are others who are authorized to do so as well - including the
ADs and WG Chairs.  I assume this is true of other mailing lists as
well, and I do not think that it is obvious to everyone who is on the
list of people with authority to manage each list.

That is the reason for the specific reference to the administrators
listed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi.
        ... the comment that Brian's terminology use
is not consistent (Brian says "the moderators or maintainers of 
IETF mailing lists that are not WG mailing lists" in the beginning of his
message and "where the administrators are listed" later on),

It's not *my* terminology, it's an IESG statement.
The inconsistent language in the two parts of the statement has
been noted.

... reasonable in saying that a decision should name the AD consulted

Reasonable and should, yes.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi lists the
Areas, which gets you to a choice of two ADs at most, so the
responsible AD is not hard to find.

        I believe that at least a formal notification must occur and it
must list those people involved in making the decision.

Yes, I agree.

        It would also be good from the list administrator's perspective
if the notification was at least backed up by the consulted AD - if it
does not in fact come from the consulted AD(s).

Not sure I see why, but I'd certainly expect the AD to be
copied.

... if there are lists that are
maintained by the IETF site that do not properly belong under IESG
authority,

Those would not be at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi,
so would be out of scope.

or if there are lists maintained elsewhere that are kept on
behalf of the IETF, but do not fall under IESG authority.  I don't 
know that such lists exist, but it is possible that they do.

If they do, they *are* are at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi

        Would BoF mailing lists fall into this category?

If they are listed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi.

... there should be an announcement that "such-and-such" list now 
falls under the
IESG authority

Ideally yes, but since the list of such lists is public
at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi,
this is low on my list of change requests to the secretariat.

     Brian

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf