Hi Sam, With the change that you have proposed below, I would support publication of this document (and the running of this experiment). While there are a number of small things we could tweak, I think that would be a waste of time. This is good enough as a temporary measure to relieve the current pressures, and I think that our efforts would be better spent on working on a real BCP proposal along the lines you have described below. Margaret > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:43 AM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: 'IETF Discussion' > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review > ofdraft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt > > >>>>> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman > <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Margaret> This document defines an RFC3933 experiment in which we > Margaret> would temporarily give the IESG the authority to create > Margaret> new mailing list management procedures and enact them. > Margaret> The only hard limitations on this authority are that > Margaret> posting suspensions cannot run beyond the timeframe of > Margaret> the experiment (18 months), nor can the procedures > Margaret> prevent anyone from reading an IETF mailing list. The > Margaret> document does not even limit the type of action that the > Margaret> IESG can take -- while it only talks about posting > Margaret> rights suspensions, this document would allow the IESG > Margaret> to define an enact other types of mailing list control > Margaret> at their discretion. It explicitly does not require > Margaret> that we use the same procedures on all IETF mailing > Margaret> lists, as it explicitly allows the IESG to define > Margaret> different procedures for different lists. > > Note that this is the same authority the IESG had for WG > mailing lists under RFC 2418. > > However I agree that this is not where we want to be long-term. > > Margaret> This document does not define any principles that the > Margaret> IESG should follow in determining mailing list > Margaret> management procedures, nor does it require any type of > Margaret> community review or consensus to enact them. > > I think these are the sorts of details--principles and review > requirements--that the community needs to decide on. I think > that will take a while to do, and it is my hope that this > experiment may provide input to that process. Long term > though I agree with you that the BCP for mailing list > management must provide principles. > > > Margaret> At first, I thought it was the purpose of this document > Margaret> to allow the IESG to try out different mailing list > Margaret> management procedures on different IETF mailing lists > Margaret> for a short period of time, with the goal of picking > Margaret> some successful procedures that would later be discussed > Margaret> by the community and potentially reflected in our BCPs. > Margaret> In other words, I thought that this was a temporary > Margaret> measure to address the weaknesses in our current > Margaret> procedures and get some experience with alternatives. I > Margaret> still thought that the goal would be to settle on > Margaret> well-defined, community-consensus-based procedures by > Margaret> then end of this 18 months. > > That is the goal of this experiment. > I propose adding text to clarify this fact. > > I propose adding to the end of the last paragraph in the introduction: > > This experiment is successful if it gives the community useful input > on how to design mailing list management process. It is > not expected > that this experiment will be adopted in its current form as a > permenant BCP. > > Margaret> At that time, I supported > Margaret> this document, because I saw it as a better alternative > Margaret> than living with our broken procedures until the > Margaret> community could fix them. I thought that the IESG could > Margaret> end this experiment if/when we had community consensus > Margaret> on a new set of procedures. > > > I still believe that to be true. > > > I'm sorry if my comments at the general area meeting were confusing. > I believe that as a general rule you want the operative part > of an experiment to look like a BCP. I've been pushing > fairly hard for this even in this case because this is one of > the first experiments we are running. I do not believe that > this current experiment would make a great BCP. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf