It is an interesting subject. The lists in IETF are usually formed by WG,
but for IETF general area, we have no relations between area and lists
because no WGs. IMHO the general area only has one list which is this IETF
list, if there are new ones proposed then we need to link them to the IETF
general area.
I agree that the IETF general area needs to do more work to improve
the list "value" and to reorganise its individual/WG works processes. I
support totally Dave's proposals.
AB
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
Dave,
On 8/12/14, 2:32 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
I've been resistant to a separate list, primarily because the benefit of
the IETF-wide last call process is broad and frankly accidental review.
Unexpected folk looking at a document can find unexpected issues. This
is goodness, IMO. A separate list would be expected to have much
smaller and narrower participation and thereby reduce that benefit of
happenstance review.
However this IETF list mixes many topics, including one of serious
review. Worse, the lack of discipline in the conduct of discussions on
the IETF list ensures very poor signal-to-noise. And having its
membership drop off precipitously certainly undermines any expectation
of broad review...
If a separate list were created with an explicit charter to be for
review comments and discussion only, and if the list were operated with
explicit and active management to ensure discussion focus, tracking of
issues, and the rest of what is needed to create a serious tone of
serious discussion, then it well might be able to achieve meaningful
improvement over what we have now. This would mean explicitly declaring
who the facilitator is for each review request. (I doubt it is viable
to have a single person do it for all reviews.)
My only problem with this sadly seems more theoretical than actual: the
IETF list used to be the one common discussion point that participants
shared, where serious architectural issues could be discussed. And it's
not like that hasn't happened this year. See the debate about dmarc,
for instance.
But people do need to exercise self-control. I had thought that was
what the IESG proposal was all about, really: helping people to
recognize when they need to take a step back. If this list is to be
taken seriously by serious people then people need to be have in a
serious manner towards it.
Eliot