Gray, Eric wrote:
... there is a need to define who
is what, he has a valid point. I moderate the MPLS mailing list, but
there are others who are authorized to do so as well - including the
ADs and WG Chairs. I assume this is true of other mailing lists as
well, and I do not think that it is obvious to everyone who is on the
list of people with authority to manage each list.
That is the reason for the specific reference to the administrators
listed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi.
... the comment that Brian's terminology use
is not consistent (Brian says "the moderators or maintainers of IETF
mailing lists that are not WG mailing lists" in the beginning of his
message and "where the administrators are listed" later on),
It's not *my* terminology, it's an IESG statement.
The inconsistent language in the two parts of the statement has
... reasonable in saying that a decision
should name the AD consulted
Reasonable and should, yes.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi lists the
Areas, which gets you to a choice of two ADs at most, so the
responsible AD is not hard to find.
I believe that at least a formal notification must occur and it
must list those people involved in making the decision.
Yes, I agree.
It would also be good from the list administrator's perspective
if the notification was at least backed up by the consulted AD - if it
does not in fact come from the consulted AD(s).
Not sure I see why, but I'd certainly expect the AD to be
... if there are lists that are
maintained by the IETF site that do not properly belong under IESG
Those would not be at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi,
so would be out of scope.
or if there are lists maintained elsewhere that are kept on
behalf of the IETF, but do not fall under IESG authority. I don't know
that such lists exist, but it is possible that they do.
If they do, they *are* are at
Would BoF mailing lists fall into this category?
If they are listed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi.
... there should
be an announcement that "such-and-such" list now falls under the
Ideally yes, but since the list of such lists is public
this is low on my list of change requests to the secretariat.
Ietf mailing list