> From: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <jhuang1@xxxxxxx>
> asking only "the IETF community" to respond to LC and even explicitly
> state that "one should only respond (to LC) if he's subscribed to foo
> and bar IETF mailing list" will probably not deter people from
> 'drive-by' subscribing and posting of knee-jerk comments.
Hence my suggestion of a separate mailing list. If the only list mentioned
in the LC is "ietf-comments", I think people are not likely to find "ietf"
on their own.
Oh, and that suggestion that we change the wording to be "The IESG solicits
final comments from the IETF community on whether the IETF community has
consensus to publish" - that would be a good idea to do if we _don't_ set up a
separate mailbox. If we _did_, we should leave it out, so that the public
_does_ have someplace to send comments. Still, IMO 'one mailbox, no public
comments' and 'one mailbox, accept public comments' are both inferior (for
different reasons) to 'two mailboxes, accept public comments'.
> But that's what will amount to if .. (3) no regulars would take the
> risk to subscribe to the new mailing list. So no comment on the new
> mailing list would effectively be heard.
I was not recommended that the new mailbox be a bit-bucket - I explicitly
called for it to be monitored by someone(s) who would bring anything novel
and/or significant to all our attention.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf