--On Monday, September 16, 2019 14:09 -0500 Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:46 AM John C Klensin > <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> This is a serious question despite the way I'm about to ask >> it, but, if we successfully did a split on that basis, >> wouldn't that leave us an "IEFF Last Call" list and an "IETF >> Noise and Whining" list? It also suggests something else: >> would it make sense to do a three-way split: >> > > I think this raises a good point, but I would modify the > solution based on the current list description. > > 1) "It furthers the development and specification of Internet > technology through discussion of technical issues" > > >> * IETF Last Calls on technical specifications (including >> technical A/S documents) >> > > 2) "it hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, and > procedures" > > >> * IETF Last Calls on procedural specifications (as >> recent examples, that would include all of the >> anti-harassment documents, all of the IASA2 work, and >> any documents that arise out of the recent discussions >> about recalls and recall eligibility) >> >> * Everything else >> > > So, I think there is an argument for keeping procedural RFCs > and "everything else" on ietf@xxxxxxxx. I'm not sure how easy > it would be to do that. Actually, Rob, what I think I've observed is that the really long, tedious, threads on which many people have opinions and feel a need to express them multiple times are typically about procedural issues, with many, if not most, derived from documents in Last Call. So maybe three lists rather than two or maybe we should push the procedural and administrative discussions off into an "ietf-procedures" list and keep the technical discussions and Last Calls on the IETF one. And I told someone who wrote me off-list, I'm not sure the above is a serious suggestion, but it is another way in which I think we should be thinking clearly about what we are doing and its implications. > I do think email provides a nice escape hatch if there's an > edge case where it's not clear which list is best: CC both > lists. Hopefully, that will be rare. Prior experience suggests that it often leads to parallel discussions that don't quite synchronize as some people post to one list, some to the other, and some to both. best, john
