Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 15:03:26 -0800

Hi Rob,
At 12:13 PM 22-11-2021, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>On the SAA issue, I have responded more generally on a separate thread.

Thanks for the response.  I'll comment inline.

>My interpretation is that the latitude is meant to the refer to the 
>topics that may be discussed.  But I regard the text in the abstract 
>as just giving an overview and the "normative" text that defines 
>what is/isn't allowed as being in section 2, and the parts of 
>section 1 that apply to all mailing lists.  Please see item (3) of 
>the other email that I just sent proposing some specific text about 
>how the moderation is done.
>
>Would that proposed text in that email be sufficient to address you 
>concerns?  Or do you think that further changes are warranted, and 
>if you so, please can you propose concrete changes?

As background information, I had a very high count on Last-Calls for 
well over a decade.  You proposed the following sentence: "They are 
encouraged to take into account the overall nature of the postings by 
an individual and whether particular postings are an aberration or 
typical."  Will that be taken into consideration or does the change 
of mailing list for Last-Calls reset the clock?

I gather that you are aware that it is up to the author to propose 
text.  I don't mind doing that as long in specific cases.

>I'm always hopefully that we can get ietf@ back into a shape where 
>more of the community regard it as holding useful discussion and 
>decide to rejoin.  But either way, one could argue that the meaning 
>of community in this sense refers to those individuals who choose to 
>be subscribed to the ietf@ mailing list.

I have been musing over "community" for some time.  I unfortunately 
did not have time to write about it as it has been a bit busy at my end.

There is some new text which you proposed: "... the related guidance 
from section 1 that applies to all mailing lists."  I don't think 
that a charter for the IETF mailing list should apply for other 
mailing lists, e.g. a WG mailing list.  A WG mailing list is operated 
under the WG Charter.

You also proposed the following text: "The IETF list moderators are 
intended to establish a self-moderation function on the community, by 
the community.  The IETF Chair therefore should not appoint a list 
moderator who is serving in a NomCom-appointed IETF leadership 
position."  My reading of that text is that a person serving in a 
"NomCom-appointed IETF leadership position" is not part of the "community".

I read your response to Adrian.  If I am not mistaken, he referred to 
what is known as "affected parties".  There are 1787 subscribers on 
@ietf and 81 subscribers on @gendispath.  The assumption that the 
affected parties are on gendispatch mailing list is, in my opinion, 
incorrect.  I'll leave it to the Area Directors to consider the 
following question: is it appropriate to state that there is 
"consensus" when the affected parties are not included in the loop?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy