Re: draft discussion lists

On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:58 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> 
wrote:

> We seem to be getting  (or I seem to be noticing) a lot more drafts that 
> aren't associated with a specific working group, or are pre-WG adoption. I'm 
> finding myself at a loss for where to go on some of these to "discuss" that 
> isn't off-topic for whatever list I might be directed to.  
>
>
>
>
> How about 
>
> 1) automatically creating a "discuss" list for each draft as it's published 
> (separate from the send-to-authors address)
>
> 2) providing a link to enroll in such list as part of the draft announcement 
> and on the tracker page.
>
> 3) providing tools for owners of the other lists (e.g. the working group 
> list) to "adopt" the draft discuss email address either when the draft is 
> adopted as a WG item, or if the wg deems the draft to be on-topic or better 
> discussed by a wider audience.  If adopted, retain the email tagging of the 
> email as a discussion on a particular draft.  Adoption should merge the 
> subscription lists for the purpose of posting to the list.
>
> 4) providing area-wide mailing lists (e.g. security(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, 
> routing(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org) etc for discussions less focused than 
> appropriate for a WG but more focused than the IETF mailing list.  These 
> should be different than the lists for the area advisory groups such as SAAG. 
>   Have closed/ended WG emails default/merge to that mailing list if there 
> isn't a reason to retain a separate list.
>
>
> Part of the above is a desire to segment the conversations a bit more than 
> we're currently doing so as to reduce the noise level.  Part of it is to 
> provide tools (e.g. markings that identify something that's specifically a 
> draft discussion from that of being a WG discussion) for filtering on receipt.
>
> Later, Mike
We actually do have several area-wide lists, such as appsarea@ and rtgwg@.

As of today, I see 1879 internet drafts. Of those, 1428 are named for working 
groups.

The place I primarily see not-wg-names is irtf drafts 
(draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis), IAB drafts (draft-iab-doi), drafts from old 
working groups or non-wg lists (draft-tsou-behave-natx4-log-reduction), drafts 
whose authors haven’t decided what working group they target 
(draft-welzl-ecn-benefits, which could be in aqm or tsvwg) or are building 
towards what someone hopes will be such a group, and some where someone 
fat-fingered the name of a working group. There are at least some where someone 
is simply bringing up a topic (draft-wierenga-ietf-eduroam or 
draft-secretaries-good-practices). 

When I see a draft that is named draft-*-v6ops-*-00.txt, I have a bot that 
sends a note to v6ops@ to encourage folks to read and discuss it. I could 
imagine a bot at IETF central that did the same thing - when a -00 draft is 
posted and one of the “words” in its name corresponds to the name of a mailing 
list, the list is copied on the announcement. What folks do with it is up to 
them, of course; in our case, if the working group doesn’t say anything or 
uniformly pans it, the chairs assume it’s not interesting, and if folks say 
“hey, there’s something interesting here”, OK, it’s interesting. One way that 
*could* work would be that the upload tool prepopulates some field with the 
name of a mailing list, and if it doesn’t come up with one, forces the author 
to identify one or more mailing lists s/he would like notified. I know of at 
least some folks that file a draft and feel disappointed that nobody commented 
on it, but didn’t know to take that step. OK, this would make sure the step got 
taken.

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail