David Kessens <david.kessens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 07:14:41PM -0400, John Leslie wrote: >> Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> [David's DICUSS stated:] >>> >>>> It is haphazardous at best to rescind one control mechanism and to >>>> replace it with one that leaves non working group mail management >>>> completely out in the dark, especially considering that we have had >>>> most problems recently on non working group mailing lists and that >>>> the only PR actions that were taken were specifically used to deal >>>> with issues on non working group lists. >> >> This, IMHO, is David's strongest point. But I believe we have to, >> first, get RFC 3683 out of the way, and second, look at why we've >> found ourselves discussing P-R actions when possibly honest >> differences of opinion arise (by which I mean only that Dean Anderson >> and JFC Morfin appeared to honestly believe what they were saying). > > So what do people do who manage non-working group IETF lists in the > mean time ? > >> I don't believe we _know_ the right apprach for non-WG lists. I >> strongly support trying the geometrically-increasing suspensions >> being tried on <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >> >> We need experience with such ideas before we can claim to have a >> solution for non-WG lists. We should not hold up Brian's proposal in >> search of a perfection which may be beyond our reach. > > Is there any particular reason why you believe that problem is really > so different from working group lists ? There are several. First: We have a better understanding of the problems on WG lists. They generally cover a narrow enough focus that it's pretty clear who's working towards consensus and whose beating a dead horse. Second: there's an immediacy about the tasks. The WG has charter deadlines and must sometimes give ideas less discussion time than they otherwise might deserve. Third: There are built-in checks against ignoring important input. The output of a WG must go to last-call, at which point the ideas of anyone who has been silenced _will_ be given attention. If those ideas have merit, the process will be delayed, if not actually sent back for rework. Non-WG lists, OTOH, cover a much wider range. Some of them are small enough that "Please don't feed the troll" always works. Some of them are already "by invitation only". Others, like <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, exist as a catch-all to cover issues not dealt with elsewhere: such lists _need_ to draw out discussions (like this) which seem like a waste of time to most list participants. I'm not saying there are no problems on non-WG lists: just that they're different enough that one size may not fit all -- and that we should concentrate on fixing what we understand well. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf