Thanks, Joel.
I think in general it would be good to avod creating multiple places
where to look for policies about mailing lists. IMHO the "about" on
mailman should be authoritative.
If a non-wg maiing list seems to need some explicit management
person(s), maybe add that info to the "about". I am not sure
any of the current non-WG IETF mailing lists actually has any
official designated persons for such a rule (except well-known
exceptions such as ietf@xxxxxxxx). IMHO self-management works
usually well, and in the few case where not, one could always
escalate to IESG/IAB. Whether a separate designated SAA is
better i doubt, but no strong opinion.
Chers
Toerless
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:32:49PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> 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
> >
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
