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