Reading the discussion of the SAA, I wonder if part of the confusion
here is the difference between the SAA managing (and working to control
and prevent) seriously inappropriate conduct as defined by 3005, and the
general role of a lsit owner to keep the list on topic and ensure that
discussions are moved to where they are most effective.
As a hypothetical, if instead of the SAA as SAA ssending the
"suggestion", Alissa had sent a note calling attention to the fact that
the underlying message had requested comments to rfc-interest, and asked
if the discussion could be moved there, would that have been seen as
less inappropriate? Even if one then chose (as I expect folks would
have) to suggest that such a move was the wrong answer?
I think it is important that we keep the SAA role clear, so that it
stays effective.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/2/2019 11:06 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 9/2/2019 9:51 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi Alissa - I appreciate you have a particular point of view about what
you think is appropriate discussion on the IETF mailing list, but I
think you're missing the point that what's important is the topic and
its important to more than RFC format geeks ( :-) )that hang out on the
rfc-interest mailing list. I also think you're mis-reading 3005. I
don't think we're quite ready to discuss the technical aspects of the
RFC series - and that's the appropriate set of discussions for
rfc-interest, not the philosophy of the oversight of the RFC series and
process.
Matthew made a suggestion to use a mailing list controlled by the RFC
Series Editor for discussion about an RFC Series-related SOW, based on
the charter of this list described in RFC 3005.
As SAA, it's rare that such a posting would be considered just a
suggestion. I myself didn't actually take it as just a suggestion.
Eliot beat me in providing pushback.
It would be great if people decide to follow his suggestion, as some
have already. If not, I am confident that the RSOC and the IAB will
take into account what they read here between now and September 14
when the SOW comment period closes and I am optimistic that the
discussion on rfc-interest, on this list, and everywhere in the IETF
can remain respectful. My hope is that people will use the next 12
days to contemplate the email Sarah sent and provide their feedback.
Neither Matthew nor you appear to be reading the same things out of 3005
as the rest of us - I'd be interested in how you interpret this topic in
a manner to suggest that its an inappropriate topic for the IETF list.
RFC3005: In addition to the topics noted above, appropriate postings include:
- Last Call discussions of proposed protocol actions
- Discussion of technical issues that are candidates for IETF work,
but do not yet have an appropriate e-mail venue
- Discussion of IETF administrative policies
- Questions and clarifications concerning IETF meetings
- Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are
sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.
Inappropriate postings include:
- Unsolicited bulk e-mail
- Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
activities, or technical concerns
- Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
- Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.
Later, Mike
Cheers,
Alissa Cooper
IETF Chair
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Q3f9FnFcrWKRySD-DqQCgI6lbCw
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-3M3WswGZ_0zvYvDMO4f_J58qtQ
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M2d85XpOOR4tm78yGyh205iJWJc
[4] See slides 14 to 18 of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-ietf-sessa-all-slides-ietf-105-administrativeoperations-plenary
