Usually (in my experience - opinions may differ) the best way to keep serious and not so serious things apart is to have a list for the non-serious stuff. Then if it pops up on the serious list you can ask it to go where it belongs, which is easier than just demanding it goes away entirely. And while non-serious, such lists can help produce a sense of community - among those who want in to it. While those wanting to just be serious can do that. But apart from that, this list seems to do three jobs, discussing procedural things, protocols etc., and travel/meeting things. Yes of course there are overlaps, but if they were separated then people could just opt in to whichever made sense to them. Just protocols for example. (Of course maybe I've missed something and that three-way split isn't the best. That's a detail - for the procedural part of the list.) -- Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Information Assurance Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear Sent: 12 August 2014 13:53 To: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: value of this list 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 ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ********************************************************************