+1, let’s do this. Tim > Am 12.09.2019 um 18:14 schrieb Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > As we discussed in the plenary session at IETF 105 in Montréal, some > community members have suggested moving document last-call discussions > onto a dedicated "last-call" mailing list, and off of the general > <ietf@xxxxxxxx> list. The latter is a high-volume list with a lot of > varied discussion, and some think that it would be useful to separate > the general discussion from the last-call discussion, to allow people > to choose which discussions (or both) to follow. In the IETF 105 > plenary, support was expressed for that separation. > > The IESG agrees, and wants to try an experiment to that end. We > propose to create <last-call@xxxxxxxx> and to direct last-call > comments and discussions there (the last-call announcements would > still go to <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>, with "reply-to" set to the new > list). That list would be monitored by volunteers recruited by the > IETF Chair, and digressions would be nudged back to <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, > while we would ask people having last-call discussions on this list to > please move them to the new list. We would get the tools team > involved so that the distribution lists for directorate and > review-team reviews would be updated appropriately. > > Our plan is to create the new list and pre-subscribe everyone who is > subscribed to <ietf@xxxxxxxx> at that time. Of course, anyone could > unsubscribe to either or both lists immediately or later, but we think > that doing it this way would minimize the likelihood that people would > miss important stuff because of the move, and folks can choose what > they prefer from there. > > After six months, we would do an initial evaluation, including getting > feedback from the community, to see how the experiment is working. If > it seems worth continuing we would do so, and at a point that the > community decides that the experiment is a success (should it so > decide), we would start an update to BCP 45 to formally move the > location for last-call discussions, and we would update the 2007 IESG > Statement on Last Call Guidance. > > We invite comments, here, on this plan, by the end of September. As I > say above, we've heard support from the community for the general > idea, and we'd like to make sure this direction is what the community > wants. > > Barry, for the IESG >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
