Hi Henrik, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > As a service to the community, there are two sets of email address alias > lists maintaned on tools.ietf.org: > > One list provides aliases for the WG chairs of all active working groups > and also of chairs of working groups which have been closed recently, and > also equivalent aliases for working group ADs, patterned so: > <wg-acronym>-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and <wg-acronym>-ads@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Another list provides aliases for draft authors, so that they can be > reached through aliases following the pattern <draft-name>@tools.ietf.org. > > The service is described briefly on http://tools.ietf.org/ under the > "Share and Communicate" heading. First, I want to say that this is a great service. I do a fair number of reviews and I use these aliases all the time... It's really become a critical part of our infrastructure. > As maintainer of these lists, I, Henrik Levkowetz, hereby let it be known > that I have chosen to extend the posting rights action against Dean Anderson > (see http://www4.ietf.org/iesg/pr-action.html) to also apply to these lists, > according to the provisions for posting rights actions described on the above > referenced web page and the references it mentions. While this may be technically within the limits of 3683, I don't think it comports well with the spirit of the document. To recap, the effect of a PR-Action is that: o those identified on the PR-action have their posting rights to that IETF mailing list removed; and, o maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion, also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list. >From the rest of the context of the document, I think it's reasonably clear that the purpose of allowing maintainers of other mailing lists to remove posting rights is to allow them to quickly respond to disruptive behavior *on those lists*. In the case of WG or other discussion lists, this is a reasonably good fit: the maintainer of the list is generally the chair and so is responsible for monitoring and facilitating discussion and is well position to determine whether the subject of a PR action is disruptive. However, this is not really the case for these lists, which are just expanders for the relevant chairs, ADs, or draft authors. While you may be maintaining the list in a technical sense, the recipients are the ones who monitor the communication and are in a position to determine whether it's disruptive or not. I don't think it fits well with the intent of 3683 to have a global decision to be taken on all these services by someone who is not involved in the discussion, regardless of whether those involved have complained. I'm not saying that PR Actions can't be extended to these aliases (though I think that given Sam's comments it's an open question and given the ease of expanding them directly it seems rather pointless) but in my opinion at minimum it should be upon request of the recipients, not the decision of a global maintainer. Regardless of what the IETF's global policy is and without taking a position on Dean Anderson's postings in general, I am not aware of him having abused these services to send any inappropriate mail to me. I therefore see no good reason to block what is otherwise a useful communication channel. Accordingly, I hereby request that you unblock his posting privileges to any and all of the above mentioned aliases that send mail to me. Best, -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf