Hi Henrik,
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
As a service to the community, there are two sets of email address alias
lists maintaned on tools.ietf.org:
One list provides aliases for the WG chairs of all active working groups
and also of chairs of working groups which have been closed recently, and
also equivalent aliases for working group ADs, patterned so:
<wg-acronym>-chairs(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org and
<wg-acronym>-ads(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)
Another list provides aliases for draft authors, so that they can be
reached through aliases following the pattern <draft-name>@tools.ietf.org.
The service is described briefly on http://tools.ietf.org/ under the
"Share and Communicate" heading.
First, I want to say that this is a great service. I do a fair number of
reviews and I use these aliases all the time... It's really become a
critical part of our infrastructure.
As maintainer of these lists, I, Henrik Levkowetz, hereby let it be known
that I have chosen to extend the posting rights action against Dean Anderson
(see http://www4.ietf.org/iesg/pr-action.html) to also apply to these lists,
according to the provisions for posting rights actions described on the above
referenced web page and the references it mentions.
While this may be technically within the limits of 3683, I don't think
it comports well with the spirit of the document. To recap, the effect
of a PR-Action is that:
o those identified on the PR-action have their posting rights to
that IETF mailing list removed; and,
o maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion,
also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list.
From the rest of the context of the document, I think it's reasonably
clear that the purpose of allowing maintainers of other mailing lists
to remove posting rights is to allow them to quickly respond to
disruptive behavior *on those lists*. In the case of WG or other
discussion lists, this is a reasonably good fit: the
maintainer of the list is generally the chair and so is responsible
for monitoring and facilitating discussion and is well position
to determine whether the subject of a PR action is disruptive.
However, this is not really the case for these lists, which are just
expanders for the relevant chairs, ADs, or draft authors. While you
may be maintaining the list in a technical sense, the recipients are
the ones who monitor the communication and are in a position to
determine whether it's disruptive or not. I don't think it fits well
with the intent of 3683 to have a global decision to be taken on all
these services by someone who is not involved in the discussion,
regardless of whether those involved have complained. I'm not saying
that PR Actions can't be extended to these aliases (though I think
that given Sam's comments it's an open question and given the ease of
expanding them directly it seems rather pointless) but in my opinion
at minimum it should be upon request of the recipients, not the
decision of a global maintainer.
Regardless of what the IETF's global policy is and without taking a
position on Dean Anderson's postings in general, I am not aware of him
having abused these services to send any inappropriate mail to me.
I therefore see no good reason to block what is otherwise a useful
communication channel. Accordingly, I hereby request that you unblock
his posting privileges to any and all of the above mentioned aliases
that send mail to me.
Best,
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf