Brian, Thanks for the clarification! -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] --> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:57 PM --> To: Gray, Eric --> Cc: 'Sam Hartman'; ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting --> --> 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