David Kessens <david(_dot_)kessens(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 07:14:41PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:
Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:
[David's DICUSS stated:]
It is haphazardous at best to rescind one control mechanism and to
replace it with one that leaves non working group mail management
completely out in the dark, especially considering that we have had
most problems recently on non working group mailing lists and that
the only PR actions that were taken were specifically used to deal
with issues on non working group lists.
This, IMHO, is David's strongest point. But I believe we have to,
first, get RFC 3683 out of the way, and second, look at why we've
found ourselves discussing P-R actions when possibly honest
differences of opinion arise (by which I mean only that Dean Anderson
and JFC Morfin appeared to honestly believe what they were saying).
So what do people do who manage non-working group IETF lists in the
mean time ?
I don't believe we _know_ the right apprach for non-WG lists. I
strongly support trying the geometrically-increasing suspensions
being tried on <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
We need experience with such ideas before we can claim to have a
solution for non-WG lists. We should not hold up Brian's proposal in
search of a perfection which may be beyond our reach.
Is there any particular reason why you believe that problem is really
so different from working group lists ?
There are several.
First: We have a better understanding of the problems on WG lists.
They generally cover a narrow enough focus that it's pretty clear who's
working towards consensus and whose beating a dead horse.
Second: there's an immediacy about the tasks. The WG has charter
deadlines and must sometimes give ideas less discussion time than they
otherwise might deserve.
Third: There are built-in checks against ignoring important input.
The output of a WG must go to last-call, at which point the ideas of
anyone who has been silenced _will_ be given attention. If those ideas
have merit, the process will be delayed, if not actually sent back for
rework.
Non-WG lists, OTOH, cover a much wider range. Some of them are small
enough that "Please don't feed the troll" always works. Some of them
are already "by invitation only". Others, like <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, exist
as a catch-all to cover issues not dealt with elsewhere: such lists
_need_ to draw out discussions (like this) which seem like a waste of
time to most list participants.
I'm not saying there are no problems on non-WG lists: just that
they're different enough that one size may not fit all -- and that we
should concentrate on fixing what we understand well.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf