ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Spam in the IETF's name?

2005-10-20 07:35:44
There is a rule on Wikipedia that the IETF would do well to follow here:

        Don't bite the newcommers.


On the other issue, I would like to see all IETF related work take place
exclusively on IETF run mailing lists and have the mailing list
configured so that everyone who subscribes to the list receives the IPR
warning. I would like that to start at the earliest possible moment.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of John C Klensin
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:05 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Spam in the IETF's name?



--On Thursday, 20 October, 2005 12:07 +0200 Brian E Carpenter 
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:


You'll find the dix list at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi so it is operating 
under IETF IPR rules and was approved by an Apps AD.

2) Even if it is, is mass-like mailing (rather than sending to the 
IETF  list, the IETF-announce list, or one-on-one personal 
mails) a 
reasonable  way to recruit people?

Well, the meeting mentioned is not an official IETF meeting to the 
best of my knowledge. But I think it's premature to call it 
off topic 
for IETF lists.

Brian,

There is another issue here and it may call for reexamination 
of the criteria for listing of public IETF-related mailing lists.

We periodically have a discussion about the dangers of RFCs 
being mistaken for standards.  That discussion has produced 
IESG disclaimers on independent-submission RFCs strong enough 
as to be read as IETF rejection of ideas presented when there 
is no such IETF consensus as well as proposals for even 
stronger action.  But, at least IMO, there is at least as 
much, and probably more, danger in what now appears to be a 
trend toward "meeting at IETF" announcements for meetings 
that have not gone through the BOF or WG charter/approval process.

The criteria for such listings now include only conformance 
with the IPR rules with everything else being pretty much voluntary.
Should we (or the IESG, or PESCI) be considering asking 
external bodies/groups who want to be listed to agree to some 
minimum [other] standards of conduct, such as not 
representing themselves as IETF activities or connected with 
the IETF standards process, either directly or through 
hair-splitting language?

     john


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>