So you want this list to be under IETF rules, because it's intended that IETF contributions will happen from it, but you don't want it to be an IETF list, because people might treat it as being IETF contributions.
I see there's a distinction, I'm not clear why it was drawn, but I'll take your word for it that it's not as political as it sounds.
On 4 Feb 2015 20:27, "Kathleen Moriarty" <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Dave,
I didn't read this thread the same way you did. I read it as Ted
pointing out that the Notewell will be important for contributors to
understand applies for any submission that comes to the IETF.
You can look at the SecAuth archive to see why it was shutdown. Many
were glad as the work was taking too long to become focused into an
achievable set of goals. A push to go back to the drawing board was
needed. If it's an IETF list, many feel they have to follow it and
the work wasn't ready for that yet. We'll re-evaluate the proposal
when they have had time to narrow the scope and figure out what
problem they want to solve most.
Best regards,
Kathleen
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Do I understand this right? The original mailing list was shut down by the
> IETF, and folks are now complaining that the third party list isn't an IETF
> one? Seriously?
>
> On 4 Feb 2015 14:29, "Tobias Gondrom" <tobias.gondrom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 04/02/15 21:12, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:14 PM, Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> just fyi: the mailing-list does on its sign-up page (in the first line)
>> make the explicit statement to operate under the IETF
>> Notewell:https://mail.rozanak.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnauth
>>
>> That's precisely what I would advise doing in this situation. It might
>> be worth adding that the list is informal and is not sponsored by the IETF,
>> though; otherwise people might get the impression that it's an official IETF
>> mailing list. You should also disclose whether or not the list is being
>> archived, although since it's not an IETF mailing list, whether you do so is
>> not up to us. If the list is not archived, however, it might be difficult
>> and involve a painful discovery process if for some reason the Note Well had
>> to be enforced in a lawsuit. So while keeping an archive places an
>> additional burden on Hosnieh, it is probably a win for other participants.
>>
>> (And yes, I realize you were talking to the other Ted... :)
>>
>>
>> Just fyi: I am not the administrator of the mailing-list. I just happened
>> to sign-up and noticed that the notewell is/was already there on the sign-up
>> page. It seems the new list only got needed up as the Sec AD (Kathleen) shut
>> down the previous IETF BOF mailing-list.
>>
>> And to answer your second question: it appears the new list is being
>> archived, as is also a basic mailman function.
>>
>> Best regards, Tobias
--
Best regards,
Kathleen