Although it is true that RFC2418 does not explicitly permit the "review"
of messages submitted to elists from non-subscribers, it is in fact an
accepted practice on IETF elists. So much so that the IESG has
published a statement regarding the policy and procedures of such
practices:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt
Speaking for myself, I wish that all IETF elists could and would adopt
the practice of reviewing all non-subscriber submissions for at least
obvious irrelevance. If someone has the time it would be nice to have a
more careful review to ensure messages are on-topic as described by a
Working Group's charter, but that is certainly not required. The first
would go a long way towards eliminating spam on IETF elists.
Just to be clear, I'm making a distinction between moderation and review
to reject obvious irrelevance. In that context, I agree with you that
the phrasing in the notification message you received could be improved,
but I think it's an unfair leap from "reviewing messages" to "midcom is
not open" without even asking what the actual policy and practice is and
confirming whether or not the AD and IESG are aware of it. Melinda's
note makes it clear, at least to me, that the policy is consistent with
the spirit of RFC2418 and the IESG statement indicated above.
Speaking as Co-Chair of this working group, unless you have a specific
request for a change to RFC2418 or the IESG statement, I don't see any
basis for continued discussion of this point on the poised elist.
If you object to how the midcom elist is operating you need to take that
up with the midcom-admin and the relevant AD.
Jim
co-Chair of the POISSON Working Group
--- Begin Message ---
IETF mailing lists are intended for OPEN discussion; the benefits
(cross-pollination between lists, lack of inhibition about stating
your opinions) are widely recognised as outweighing widely-accepted
drawbacks (e.g. Peter Lewis advertising every forum everywhere he can
think of, allisat going on yet another hallucinogen-induced trip down
memory lane).
midcom is not open. midcom should not be part of the IETF, much less a
working group.
No, I don't care that having a moderator-in-the-middle filtering
everything is in the spirit of the midcom charter and must be for my
own good. I _really_ don't like the concept of an IETF-approved
poster to a mailing list on an IETF-run server.
We can do our own filtering, if we choose to, and we don't need the
IETF to do it for us. Moderator approval of individual posters is
outside the spirit of RFC2418, and would require AD and IESG approval.
What are we coming to?
L.
<L(_dot_)Wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:00:40 -0500 (EST)
From: midcom-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To: l(_dot_)wood(_at_)eim(_dot_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
Subject: Mail sent to midcom
Your mail to 'midcom' with the subject:
Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Only approved posters may post without moderator approval.
Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
notification of the moderator's decision.
--- End Message ---