Hi Joel, > On Sep 3, 2019, at 2:28 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Fully agree. Creating more clarity about what is currently implicit when I and the SAA communicate with people about conduct on the list is definitely an area for improvement. I will note, though, that from where I sit, delegation is critical. It shouldn’t be the case that an email has to come from me in order for it to be interpreted properly when the SAA are empowered by RFC 3005 to convey the same message. Otherwise much of the rationale for having the SAA would be lost. Best, Alissa > > 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 >
