On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:38:00PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 22:04 -0500 Benjamin Kaduk > <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 08:38:44AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter > > wrote: > >> It would certainly be ironic if a proposal to alleviate some > >> of the disadvantages of remote participation couldn't be be > >> discussed by remote participants in multiple time zones. > >> > >> With all due respect, etc. etc., I've always understood that > >> discussion by email was intended to alleviate exactly that > >> problem, and this list *is* the IETF plenary. So exactly who > >> has been disenfranchised from this discussion who would be > >> enfranchised by a physical or virtual BOF? > > > > Taking this question at face value: technically, "no one", > > since membership in the list is open modulo posting actions or > > SAA actions (I think there may be one or two of the latter > > still active, hence scare quotes). But in practice, I hear > > from the grapevine that many people are unwilling to subscribe > > to or participate in discussions solely on this list, because > > the volume of traffic is large and the perceived signal/noise > > ratio insufficient to merit the time commitment. > > > > Having a dedicated discussion forum other than this one is > > both in keeping with the list charter and would provide a > > lower barrier to participation from those who have stayed away > > from the general discussion list but do care about remote > > participation. It is fair to debate the cardinality of that > > set, if you have a different perception than me, of course. > > Ben, > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have just made an > argument for either a dedicated mailing list or, as Spencer > suggested, using something like the ietf-nomcom (more like > co-opting, because this really isn't about the nomcom) list and > no argument at all for a BOF. Hi John, I don't think that's the point I was making. I was attempting to make a narrowly scoped statement about the IETF general discussion list *not* being an appropriate venue for a specific topic, something that I've had to think about repeatedly while holding the post of Sergeant-at-Arms. In contrast to my negative statement, we've seen some positive statements in this thread considering what *would* be an appropriate venue for this topic, and what level of community engagement is appropriate to expect for publication of a document this entwined with IETF process, all of which I am happy to see. -Ben
