I have seen many examples on different lists around the IETF of
situations where it needed someone to be able to say "no, that does not
belong". Or "your question has been answered. Unless you have a new
issue, please stop." Or other variations. There have been some
postings on architecture-discuss that in my opinion (and I grant it is
not mine to judge) were pushing the limits of what belongs. And at
least some of them seemed quite unable to hear "this does not belong".
(Fortunately, in the case I am thinking of, the rate is low enough we
survived.)
No, I do not think we need the moderator / SAA function very often. But
I do think it is entirely reasonable to be clear who has that
responsibility / authority. For IETF WGs, that is the chairs.
On the specifics, I read the note from the SAAs as saying that the list
excludes things that aare off topic. You reasonably read the note as
saying something more restrictive. That part we can (and I think have)
clarify. That is quite distinct from whether there should be a
backstop. And given that the list was set up by the IAB, it seems
appropriate that they appoint the backstop. (I am generally not in
favor of the IAB or IESG grabbing extra authority. I do not see this as
being of that form.)
Yours,
Joel
On 4/20/2020 8:50 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
Hi Joel,
Don't you think it is sufficient for the mailing list
to self-manage ? i have seen nothing worse than on any of
the other 9999 IETF mailling lists that are not ietf@xxxxxxxx.
Indeed, i think we have seen some good examples of self-management
on the list in the past month. Tell me if you think that did
or did not work well.
I for once would be afraid, that if specific persons where
given more power to control the scope of the discussion,
we might not even have had the technical exchange to answer
to specific claims made. On the other hand, i have seen bad
examples of the SAA model on the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing list:
An SAA model can quickly deteriorates IMHO into more and
more passive-aggressive language policing discussion on all sides as
opposed to best effort minimizing robust language and sticking
to the technical topics - which i think what happens easier
without SAA.
I am very interested to hear you express a more specific definition
of what you think should be in scope of architecture-discuss than what
is written in the current mailmain "about". But probably better to
discuss this in a separate thread.
Cheers
Toerless
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 05:54:12PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
My read has been that architecture-discuss was for Internet Architecture
topics of relevance to the IAB or IETF.
That does not, in my book, include random musing about research projects
that may or may not lead to something in some ill-defined time in the
future.
And even if you disagree with the specific example, it does mean that there
are clearly things which are off-topic for architecture-discuss. Which means
that someone needs to be authorized to deal with such things when they
become problematic.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/20/2020 4:13 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Thanks - I hadn't followed Toeless' thread where he encountered the
problem that triggered his email.
Just to make sure I understand - the architecture-discuss list is
intended only for topics that the IAB deems of interest specifically to
the IAB and NOT a general community list to discuss things related to
the Internet architecture. Is that correct? If so, then it does seem
we need a list where folks can have discussion of technical topics that
aren't necessarily related to work IAB is doing. I know we've
discussed in the past that the IETF discussion list is most suitable for
those discussions but I think most would agree that the list has a whole
lot more discussion of how we do non-technical things than technical (I
would guess 90/10 for the most part). I think many don't pay near the
attention to the list that they might if it were technical discussions -
for example, I subscribe to that list using my general email that I use
for not real work.
So, one question I would have then, is whether it's thus only
appropriate for someone in the community to post to architecture-discuss
if they are asking specific questions on current IAB activities and
documents?
Regards,
Mary.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 2:52 PM Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 4/20/20 11:49 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> Personally, I think it's a handy list to have
> for purely technical discussions as opposed to all the non-technical
> discussions on the main IETF discussion list.
Right, but I think it's clear that it's not every technical
discussion, which circles back around to Toerless's argument.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
Architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
Architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
