Dear IESG [Cc'in IETF] I would hereby like IESG to reconfirm that architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx is an IETF mailing list subject to IETF mailing list rules and its "about" statement and not subject to intended strict IAB controlled communications policies for IAB mailing lists as proposed by Tommy. If this is not yet the case, then please make sure that it is in the future because the proposed IAB policies do neither match the mailing lists name, the actual discussion (mostly absent IAB involvement), nor the intended discussion on it (as on mailman). See below for more detailled justification. Dear Tommy, *: Wrt to your intention to put IAB mailing lists under the following proposed policies: > Inappropriate postings consist of: spam and bulk e-mail; > unprofessional commentary, regardless of subject; OK. > announcements of conferences or activities that are not sponsored > or endorsed by the Internet Society, the IETF, or the IAB OK. > and discussion of subjects unrelated to IAB policy, > programs, activities, or technical concerns" NOK for list that go beyond those points. architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx clear goes beyond those points. a) I read this as a long-winding workaround to prohibit the IETF community to self-organize without official leadership support in inofficial side meetings using the IETF mailing list architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx I suspect these rules have especially been crafted to prohibit me to invite community members interested in architecture discussion around New IP to inofficial side meetings via the archiecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx mailing list in the future, as i did in the past for IETF106 and IETF107. AFAIK, it is not only common practice, but quite desirable for the community to use IETF/IRTF mailing lists to self-organize into whatever form of inoffical side meeting is appropriate on topics of intererst to that mailing list. Bar BOFs not being easy in times of corona. Likewise i think that notifications about events related to a mailing lists topic are quite common. The notion that only official sponsored events can be brought up sounds quite strange to me and quite contrary to the open nature of the IETF/IRTF. b) If IAB wants to enforce such restrictive policies for communications on an intentional open mailing list such as architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx, then this adds severely to my concerns about how IAB operates. I think it is unbecoming for an ISOC entity. To me, architecture-discuss@xxxxxxx is clearly not a mailing list that currently is or in the future should be subject to such IAB communication constraints: 1. It is called architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx, not @iab.org 2. About: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/Architecture-discuss > The architecture-discuss list serves as a technical discussion > forum for all members of the IETF community that are interested > in larger > architectural issues. It is meant to be an open discussion > forum for all long and/or wide range architectural concerns related > to the Internet Architecture. In particular, it may be used to > discuss and bring forth different points of view on controversial > architectural questions. Discussions that drill down and dwell > on specifics of individual protocols or technologies are to be > discouraged, redirected to appropriate other fora, or re-cast to > discussions of broader implications for Internet architecture. 3. The mayority of the discussions on the mailing list are clearly not lead by IAB, but are useful for the community. There is absolutely no need for such a mailing list to be constrained to proposed new strict IAB regime. Instead i think IAB membersh should be welcome into the discussion of the community. Cheers Toerless On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:08:48AM -0700, Tommy Pauly wrote: > Hello architecture-discuss, > > We???d like to share a few updates about IAB mailing lists, and solicit the community???s feedback on some new text. > > First, Tommy Pauly will be joining Stephen Farrell on the (existing, but rarely employed) sergeants-at-arms team to help moderate the list. > > Second, we???d like to clarify the sergeants-at-arms roles for the lists. The current description on https://www.iab.org/iab-mailing-lists/ <https://www.iab.org/iab-mailing-lists/> does mention that the lists use a sergeant-at-arms model for moderation, but does not describe what this role entails. It also does not specify if this role applies to all of the lists on the page, such as program lists. > > We???re proposing adding the following text to https://www.iab.org/iab-mailing-lists/ <https://www.iab.org/iab-mailing-lists/>, largely based on the IETF list SAA. We???d love to hear feedback on this approach! > > ==== > > IAB mailing lists have sergeants-at-arms, whose role is ensure there are no inappropriate postings. Inappropriate postings consist of: spam and bulk e-mail; announcements of conferences or activities that are not sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society, the IETF, or the IAB; unprofessional commentary, regardless of subject; and discussion of subjects unrelated to IAB policy, programs, activities, or technical concerns. > > The sergeants-at-arms are empowered to restrict posting by a person or of a thread when the content is inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. Complaints regarding a decision should be referred to the IAB chair. > > The current sergeants-at-arms for ???architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx <mailto:architecture-discuss@xxxxxxx>??? are Stephen Farrell and Tommy Pauly. For program-specific lists, the program chairs act as moderators. The "rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>??? list is moderated by the Temporary RFC Series Project Manager. > > ==== > > Third, we have many lists that are enumerated on the website that are for closed programs or past workshops. We checked the activity on these lists, and we believe that we can close the following lists. Any further discussion on these topics is welcome on architecture-discuss. > > - caris-attendees@xxxxxxx <mailto:caris-attendees@xxxxxxx> > - emserv-discuss@xxxxxxx <mailto:emserv-discuss@xxxxxxx> > - i18n-discuss@xxxxxxx <mailto:i18n-discuss@xxxxxxx> > - inip-discuss@xxxxxxx <mailto:inip-discuss@xxxxxxx> > - internetgovtech@xxxxxxx <mailto:internetgovtech@xxxxxxx> > - iotsi@xxxxxxx <mailto:iotsi@xxxxxxx> > - iotsu@xxxxxxx <mailto:iotsu@xxxxxxx> > - marnew@xxxxxxx <mailto:marnew@xxxxxxx> > - privsec-discuss@xxxxxxx <mailto:privsec-discuss@xxxxxxx> > - stackevo-discuss@xxxxxxx <mailto:stackevo-discuss@xxxxxxx> > > The remaining lists will be: > > - architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx <mailto:architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx> > - chirp@xxxxxxx <mailto:chirp@xxxxxxx> > - model-t@xxxxxxx <mailto:model-t@xxxxxxx> > - rfced-future@xxxxxxx <mailto:rfced-future@xxxxxxx> > > Best, > Tommy Pauly, on behalf of the IAB > _______________________________________________ > Architecture-discuss mailing list > Architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
