On 13/01/2017 17:16, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, January 13, 2017 14:21 +0000 Adrian Farrel
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
I hate to be a killjoy, but...
Once upon a time the IESG used to supply a little text to
include in this sort of announcement under the "Purpose"
heading to allow us to work out whether we wanted to subscribe
to the list. Since network slicing seems to be something that
is done in a number of ways already, it would be nice to get a
handle on what the purpose of this discussion forum is.
+1
To say this a little more strongly, not only have we had
examples of abuses involving IETF-hosted lists but the IESG has
some responsibility to consider the time of the community a
valuable resource and to be as protective of it when creating
these lists as when proposing a WG. There are lots of other
places where lists can be created for discussions that interest
the proposer; IETF non-WG lists should be created and announced
only if they add value to the IETF community or (probably "and")
the work of the IETF. IMO, the IESG and individual ADs need to
consider themselves accountable for the creating of non-WG lists
and provide clear explanations of why the lists are being
created and what they are about.
I hope it doesn't take appeals of list announcements to
re-establish that principle.
john
John
I am sure the omission of a full statement of purpose was an accident or
an oversight.
The Secretariat re-posted the announcement with the purpose stated in the
normal way at 1644Z.
The subject is clearly within IETF scope.
Stewart