Dave, On 8/12/14, 2:32 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > I've been resistant to a separate list, primarily because the benefit of > the IETF-wide last call process is broad and frankly accidental review. > Unexpected folk looking at a document can find unexpected issues. This > is goodness, IMO. A separate list would be expected to have much > smaller and narrower participation and thereby reduce that benefit of > happenstance review. > > However this IETF list mixes many topics, including one of serious > review. Worse, the lack of discipline in the conduct of discussions on > the IETF list ensures very poor signal-to-noise. And having its > membership drop off precipitously certainly undermines any expectation > of broad review... > > If a separate list were created with an explicit charter to be for > review comments and discussion only, and if the list were operated with > explicit and active management to ensure discussion focus, tracking of > issues, and the rest of what is needed to create a serious tone of > serious discussion, then it well might be able to achieve meaningful > improvement over what we have now. This would mean explicitly declaring > who the facilitator is for each review request. (I doubt it is viable > to have a single person do it for all reviews.) My only problem with this sadly seems more theoretical than actual: the IETF list used to be the one common discussion point that participants shared, where serious architectural issues could be discussed. And it's not like that hasn't happened this year. See the debate about dmarc, for instance. But people do need to exercise self-control. I had thought that was what the IESG proposal was all about, really: helping people to recognize when they need to take a step back. If this list is to be taken seriously by serious people then people need to be have in a serious manner towards it. Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature