Alexey, I'm not certain this is wise and am concerned that it will further reduce the number of effectiveness of actual cross-area reviews, but will reserve judgment until I see a proposal. However, I believe that, if Last Calls are moved elsewhere, it should be done only with strong and effective mechanisms for reminding people that a particular thread or subthread is actually not related to the Last Call and should be moved back to the IETF list or elsewhere and strong protections against weaponizing that mechanism to suppress dissent. Because of the difficulties we've already seen when IESG members propose, then manage, and then evaluate (for consensus) proposals for procedural changes that directly affect the IESG, I hope the IESG is carefully considering whether Last Call on documents that specific or alter IETF procedures or policies should be given the same treatment as technical specifications. best, john --On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 09:36 +0100 Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Rob, > >> On 3 Sep 2019, at 20:06, Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Is someone writing a draft that proposes moving last call >> review to a separate list? I think that's been proposed >> informally. >> >> I would like to subscribe to that list instead of this one. I >> think mixing administrative topics with sometimes-contentious >> technical review creates a habitat for bad behavior. > > Yes, IESG is actively working on this. Stay tuned. > > Best Regards, > Alexey >
