Subject: Question about who can submit to WG Chairs

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:21:56 -0700

Hi All,

Recently Bill Fener tried to post to WG-chairs (it was reply to a  
thread he had been added too) and it got rejected which brought to  
folks attention that the policy for who can submit to this list.

> Authorized submitters to the WG Chairs list are as follows:
>
>     IETF Chair
>     IETF Administrative Director
>     Authorized Secretariat Announcements and Messages
>     IAB Members
>     IESG Members
>     NOMCOM Chair

Please note this has nothing to do with who can subscribe to the list  
- we are only talking about submission of email to the list.

This seemed overly restrictive to me but I wanted to ask the folks on  
this list if they could come to any consensus or proposal about who  
should be allowed to post on this list. The list is currently  
moderated by secretariat so the policy needs to either be something  
they can realistically execute or it needs to be moderated by someone  
that could execute the desired policy.

Thanks, Cullen

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:52:20 -0400

Shouldn't that list include Working Group Chairs ?

Regards
Marshall

On Jul 1, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> Please note this has nothing to do with who can subscribe to the  
> list - we are only talking about submission of email to the list.
>
> This seemed overly restrictive to me but I wanted to ask the folks  
> on this list if they could come to any consensus or proposal about  
> who should be allowed to post on this list. The list is currently  
> they can realistically execute or it needs to be moderated by  
> someone that could execute the desired policy.
>
> Thanks, Cullen
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:12:07 -0700

If working group chairs can't submit to this list, I shouldn't receive  
this note back. Note that I received Bill's reply...

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:06:49 -0700

Uh, yah, clearly it must include chairs one way or another - that was  
the list I got from Ray. Perhaps he meant that theses people in  
addition to the subscribers can post. I really have no idea.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 21:25:40 -0400

Well, is the real question, can guests be added ?

I myself would be dubious about ad hoc additions.

However, since we all use the IETF Tools, I
suggest that it would be appropriate to add members of the Tools team  
to the
permitted posters.

Regards
Marshall

On Jul 1, 2008, at 9:06 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

>
> Uh, yah, clearly it must include chairs one way or another - that  
> was the list I got from Ray. Perhaps he meant that theses people in

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:55:58 -0700

arguably the wg chairs spend more time moderating mailing lists on the 
basis of relevancy that basically anyone else...

would it not be sufficient to have some willing victims do it?

joelja

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> suggest that it would be appropriate to add members of the Tools team to 
> the
> permitted posters.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall
>

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:47:25 -0500

So I think you're really asking for guidance and recommendations on  
how the decision to allow someone to
post (or subscribe) to the list should be made, and maybe some  
discussion on who should bear the brunt of
the load on making that decision.

To that end, can this be as simple as the following?

"The secretariat ensures that the current chairs are subscribed to the  
list and that the
   current IESG members, IAB members, IETF administrative director,  
and nomcom chair are
   whitelisted for posting. The secretariat may, at its discretion or  
at the advice of an IESG
   member whitelist other sources of posts (the secretariat might  
choose to proactively seek
   the advice of an IESG member). The secretariat will, on  
notification from the IESG
   remove a whitelisted source that is not one of the explicitly named  
sources above."

This keeps it simple, gives the people the closest to the wire the  
authority and tools
  needed to cover the vast majority of decisions, and provides a way  
to clean up anything
  that tries to go off the rails.

RjS

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:53:09 -0700

According to Hallam's law of access controll list maintenance(1) I suspect that the actual qualification is 'anyone who has ever been a WG chair'.

(1) Once granted, an access privilege will never be revoked unless either the process is automatic or verified through a standalone audit process. 

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Marshall Eubanks
Sent: Tue 7/1/2008 6:52 PM
To: Cullen Jennings
Cc: Working Group Chairs; Bill Fenner
Subject: Re: Question about who can submit to WG Chairs

Regards
Marshall

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:21:54 -0400

In the interests of full disclosure, I'll admit to creating the 
list below that Cullen forwarded.  I documented the policy (as I 
understood it at the time) for the Secretariat as part of the 
transition from Neustar to AMS.  If it matters, the policy was 
reviewed and accepted by at least Russ Housley; I don't know what 
he did as part of his review process.  Nonetheless, I don't have 
any problem with change, of course.

The question I would ask instead of who can submit messages is what 
is the purpose of the list?  I would expect the purpose of the list 
to provide a basis for who can submit.

It was my understanding that the purpose of this list is for 
working group chairs to be able to discuss amongst themselves 
issues related to the IETF that are important to them.  In 
addition, sometimes it is important for the IETF leadership and 
Secretariat to be able to communicate with the WG Chairs.

Perhaps that's overly restrictive.  Anyone have any comments?

Given that purpose it makes sense for all working group chairs to 
be subscribed to the list and for the list to be a discussion list, 
i.e., all subscribers can submit messages.  In addition it makes 
sense for various IETF leadership roles to be able to reach the 
working group chairs.  The list provided by Cullen was my list of 
those leadership roles.

Perhaps the Tools Development Team should be added to that list? 
Perhaps others should be included?

What do folks think?

Jim

-- On Tuesday, July 01, 2008 3:21 PM -0700 Cullen Jennings 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Question about who can submit to 
WG Chairs --

> thread he had been added too) and it got rejected which brought
> to folks attention that the policy for who can submit to this
> list.
>
>
>
> This seemed overly restrictive to me but I wanted to ask the
> folks on this list if they could come to any consensus or
> proposal about who should be allowed to post on this list. The
> list is currently moderated by secretariat so the policy needs to
> either be something they can realistically execute or it needs to
> be moderated by someone that could execute the desired policy.
>
>
> Thanks, Cullen
>

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:22:37 -0500

On 7/1/08 at 10:47 PM -0500, Robert Sparks wrote:

>"The secretariat ensures that the current chairs are subscribed to 
>the list and that the
>   remove a whitelisted source that is not one of the explicitly 
>named sources above."

s/an IESG member/anyone allowed to post to the list

I should be able to say to the secretariat that someone should be 
able to post to the list without them having to waste time checking 
with the IESG. I have a hard time believing that anyone on this list 
would do something stupid with this ability.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:24:17 -0700

There lies the road to creating an 'ietf-insiders' list which is not exactly a good idea for a consensus based organization.
 
The most compact definition of the list you actually want would probably be of the form 'everyone minus {X, Y, Z}' where the terms X, Y and Z refer to individuals I won't mention.

From: [email-masked] on behalf of James M Galvin
Sent: Wed 7/2/2008 10:21 AM
To: Cullen Jennings; Working Group Chairs
Cc: Bill Fenner
Subject: Re: Question about who can submit to WG Chairs

What do folks think?

Jim

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:28:10 -0400

On Jul 2, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> According to Hallam's law of access controll list maintenance(1) I  
> suspect that the actual qualification is 'anyone who has ever been a  
> WG chair'.
>
>
> (1) Once granted, an access privilege will never be revoked unless  
> either the process is automatic or verified through a standalone  
> audit process.

Well, there must have been a wipe at some point, as Bill was Chair of  
IDMR.

Marshall

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:34:01 -0700

At Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:21:56 -0700,
> that could execute the desired policy.

I guess I must be confused about IETF list policy.

After the great TMDA discussion, I somehow had the idea that our
policy was that as long as you were *subscribed* to any IETF mailing
list (or the exception list) you would be permitted to post to any
IETF list. That always seemed like a reasonable policy to me, though I
suspected it wasn't being implemented completely.

Can someone explain to me the rationale for forbidding anyone in the
IETF community from *posting* to a mailing list, even one they aren't
permitted to subscribe to? Would there otherwise be a big spam problem
from non-subscribers? 

-Ekr

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:56:25 -0400

-- On Wednesday, July 02, 2008 7:24 AM -0700 "Hallam-Baker, 
Phillip" <[email-masked]> wrote regarding RE: Question about 
who can submit to WG Chairs --

> There lies the road to creating an 'ietf-insiders' list which is
> not exactly a good idea for a consensus based organization.
>
> The most compact definition of the list you actually want would
> probably be of the form 'everyone minus {X, Y, Z}' where the
> terms X, Y and Z refer to individuals I won't mention.

Perhaps we just disagree on this point, but I don't see that as a 
serious problem in this case.

The IETF has other examples of lists of people who use a list for 
conducting their own business: for example, iab, iesg, and nomcom. 
True, these lists have open submission policies but you don't get 
to see the discussion.

In this case we have a list with a partially closed submission 
policy but a completely open archive, so anyone can see the 
discussion.

I don't see this as an "insider's list" as you describe it.  It is 
to the extent that only WG chairs and certain other leadership 
roles can subscribe or submit messages, but that is, in fact, the 
purpose of the list.  The fact that the list has this purpose and 
exists is not at all hidden.

Further, the WG Chairs do not make decisions for the IETF.  A 
consensus here is, at best, input to the real process of building 
consensus within the IETF.

Jim

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:57:04 -0400

> permitted to subscribe to? Would there otherwise be a big spam problem

Yes, what ekr said.

If someone should abuse that, we can deal with that as it happens -- there are 
procedures for banning someone for being abusive.  Otherwise, it seems like a 
waste of time and effort, and an unnecessary delay for someone who actually has 
something to communicate, to try to be restrictive about it.

(Actually, I think most IETF participants aren't even aware that the wgchairs 
list exists.)

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair  ([email-masked])

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:58:26 +0800

Given how much we depend on the tools, I suggest the tools team be
added. 

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James M Galvin
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 10:22 PM

---

From: "Ross Callon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:58:56 -0400

Personally I think that the following should be able to post to *any*
IETF mailing list:

     IETF Chair
     IETF Administrative Director
     Authorized Secretariat Announcements and Messages
     IAB Members
     IESG Members
     NOMCOM Chair
     a few senior tools team members (including Bill Fenner)
     anyone subscribed to that list

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Eric Rescorla
Sent: 02 July 2008 10:34
To: Cullen Jennings
Cc: Working Group Chairs; Bill Fenner
Subject: Re: Question about who can submit to WG Chairs

-Ekr

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:06:14 -0400

-- On Wednesday, July 02, 2008 7:34 AM -0700 Eric Rescorla 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: Question about who 
can submit to WG Chairs --

> policy was that as long as you were *subscribed* to any IETF
> mailing list (or the exception list) you would be permitted to
> post to any IETF list. That always seemed like a reasonable
> policy to me, though I suspected it wasn't being implemented
> completely.
>
> Can someone explain to me the rationale for forbidding anyone in
> the IETF community from *posting* to a mailing list, even one
> they aren't permitted to subscribe to? Would there otherwise be a
> big spam problem from non-subscribers?

As I understand it, the missing words in your statement above is 
"working group", i.e.,

As long as you are subscribed to any IETF working group mailing 
list, you are permitted to submit messages to any IETF working 
group mailing list.

There will always exist lists that do not permit submissions from 
just anyone.  The IETF has two well-known such lists:

    ietf-announce
    i-d-announce

These lists only accept messages from a well-defined set of 
sources.  All others are discarded.

I don't think it's unreasonable for WG Chairs to have a list for 
themselves.

Of course, I also have no problem if the wgchairs list believes it 
is better to open the submission policy.

I just wanted to point out that your statement of policy was also 
inappropriate as stated.

Jim

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:07:09 -0500

Yeah - I almost wrote it that way the first time. I'd be happy with  
that. (That model works
_amazingly_ well in open-source projects and focused-interest forums).

I also resonate with the idea that we make it where _anybody_ can  
subscribe and thus post,
shifting the pain to the slightly increased probability of needing to  
remove someone.

The "special" in this list should just be ensuring that current chairs  
are actually subscribed at
any given point in time.

RjS

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:18:53 -0400

+2

On Jul 2, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:

> If someone should abuse that, we can deal with that as it happens --  
> there are procedures for banning someone for being abusive.   
> Otherwise, it seems like a waste of time and effort, and an  
> unnecessary delay for someone who actually has something to  
> communicate, to try to be restrictive about it.
>
> (Actually, I think most IETF participants aren't even aware that the  
> wgchairs list exists.)
>
> Barry
>
> --

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:51:03 -0700

At Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:06:14 -0400,
> list, you are permitted to submit messages to any IETF working 

I stand corrected.

> sources.  All others are discarded.

Fair enough. But these are explicitly not discussion lists, a situation
that doesn't apply to wgchairs.

> I don't think it's unreasonable for WG Chairs to have a list for 

I didn't say it was unreasonable. What I asked was what the rationale
for it was. I'm not sure I understand what rationale you're offering.

-Ekr

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:02:34 -0400

-- On Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:51 AM -0700 Eric Rescorla 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: Question about who 
can submit to WG Chairs --

> > I don't think it's unreasonable for WG Chairs to have a list
> > for  themselves.
>
> I didn't say it was unreasonable. What I asked was what the
> rationale for it was. I'm not sure I understand what rationale
> you're offering.

I hadn't offered one.  When I wrote what I wrote for the 
Secretariat it was what I understood of how things were.  I wasn't 
trying to change or rationalize any particular policy, just carry 
forward what Neustar was doing.  Since they had no documentation I 
did have to fill in some gaps, but I don't believe I changed the 
spirit of what was explained to me.

Personally, I don't have a preference as to whether the submission 
policy is open, closed, or somewhere in between.  Given that the 
archives are open to all the only benefit I see to a not completely 
open submission policy is that it ensures the list purpose stays on 
point, which is that it is for the WG Chairs.

On the other hand, the IETF does work hard to provide transparency. 
Where it doesn't exist we make a conscious and informed choice, 
e.g., we don't all get to see the IESG mailing list archive.

Now that the policy has been explicitly "exercised" if we don't 
like the outcome I'm okay with change.

The only question I would ask is do we want to open the submission 
policy to all IETF participants (the default for all working group 
lists) or perhaps just add the tools development team?  Are we 
concerned about staying on point?

Rationally, i.e., not expressing a preference, I suspect we would 
be better served by opening the submission policy to match that of 
other working group mailing lists.  One less thing to explain.  :-)

There haven't been too many opinions expressed on this point but 
those that have been expressed seem to lean in that direction in my 
opinion.  Cullen asked the question though, so I guess he gets to 
decide when to call consensus and state what that is; it's only 
been one day of messages.

Jim