John --
Thanks for helping me to understand your concerns. For clarification:
you do not presume that the long-term result of this discussion will be
using ietf@xxxxxxxx as a forum for all i18n-related conversations from
this point forward, do you?
I'm happy that we had a burst of high-volume traffic on the general
mailing list, both from the perspective of ensuring that subscribers to
that list are well aware of the effort and from the perspective of
providing a data point for a level of interest in the topic. That level
of interest will not be ignored.
All of that said, it is the position of the ART area directors that this
discussion would benefit from having its own dedicated forum, and that
the IETF general mailing list would benefit from a relocation of the
conversation as well. I further note that establishment of a dedicated
mailing list for even non-working-group-forming BOFs is commonplace, to
the point of effectively being standard operating procedure.
/a
On 6/4/18 12:15 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Adam,
I think this is a mistake and tried to explain the reason in the
BOF proposal and some of my comments on the subject. If you
push the topic off into a separate mailing list, you encourage
those who wish the topics (internationalization substantively
and/or how to handle i18n-related documents or proposals) would
just go away or that it would be handled by specialists and then
the rest of the community informed and that they can safely
ignore them.
>From that point of view, those attitudes and whatever encourages
them are very likely what got us into the current situation.
While, for example, Nico and I may disagree about the amount of
time end energy needed to participate competently or expertly in
i18n discussions, the message that the topic can be left to
those who are specifically and sufficiently interested to join
yet another mailing list is, IMO, exactly what results in you
and your colleagues concluding that there is insufficient
critical mass to process documents or other work on the topic.
A separate mailing list may be the right thing to do, but, given
those disadvantages, I'd like to see more rationale for it than
a "high rate of traffic" over a period of about a week.
best,
john
--On Monday, June 4, 2018 11:31 -0500 Adam Roach
<adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Based on the high rate of traffic regarding
internationalization review in the IETF, it is clear that
several people are interested in at least discussing the
topic. To that end, we (the ART area directors) have created a
mailing list for continuing that conversation. Participants in
the current discussion on ietf@xxxxxxxx are requested to take
follow-ups and other related messages to the new mailing list:
List Address: i18nrp@xxxxxxxx
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp
Thanks!
