Brian,
Thanks for the clarification!
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com]
--> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:57 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: 'Sam Hartman'; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting
-->
--> Eric,
-->
--> 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
--> been noted.
-->
--> > ... 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
--> copied.
-->
--> > ... if there are lists that are
--> > maintained by the IETF site that do not properly belong under IESG
--> > authority,
-->
--> 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
--> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi
-->
--> > 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
--> > IESG authority
-->
--> Ideally yes, but since the list of such lists is public
--> at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi,
--> this is low on my list of change requests to the secretariat.
-->
--> Brian
-->
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf