I would suggest that the IESG is probably putting the cart before the horse.
The IETF mailing list is an IETF asset, not an IESG one. Instead, let's have
the discussion of what's needed by the IETF first, and then figure out how to
accomplish it. While at times the IETF list is unruly and irrelevant, it truly
is our open forum, and placing moderators on it will have - my opinion - a
chilling affect on open discourse.
I see no evidence that the sergeant-at-arms approach is not working and while I
might like tweaks to what gets posted to the list, I am mostly willing to
endure what noise there is for the occasional nuggets of wisdom, technical
thought and weird comments.
That said, if the IESG wants to moderate something, feel free to copy the IETF
mailing list and republish it as a second moderated list. Let the market
decide by subscriptions to one or the other.
Mike
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:24, IETF Chair <chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org list is very active. It hosts varied discussions
ranging from last calls to IETF organisation matters to any Internet
technology-related topics that come up. We all have seen how much discussion
there is, and occasionally, discussions that become unproductive or
repetitive. Part of the root cause of this is that unlike most IETF lists,
there is no working group chair overseeing and driving discussions.
The IESG has discussed this and plans to add moderators to manage the list
discussion. The moderators will track and guide discussions and remind people
when they get outside of the lines. Please respect the feedback from the
moderators when they say, for instance, that an issue has been already
previously discussed.
The moderation system will not affect other mailing list management methods
that are used on this list or in the IETF in general.
If you have feedback on this plan, please let us know.
Jari Arkko for the IESG