Subject: RE: Spam in the IETF's name?

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 07:30:20 -0700

There is a rule on Wikipedia that the IETF would do well to follow here:

	Don't bite the newcommers.

On the other issue, I would like to see all IETF related work take place
exclusively on IETF run mailing lists and have the mailing list
configured so that everyone who subscribes to the list receives the IPR
warning. I would like that to start at the earliest possible moment.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:05 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Spam in the IETF's name?
> 
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, 20 October, 2005 12:07 +0200 Brian E Carpenter 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> > You'll find the dix list at
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi so it is operating 
> > under IETF IPR rules and was approved by an Apps AD.
> 
> >> 2) Even if it is, is mass-like mailing (rather than sending to the 
> >> IETF  list, the IETF-announce list, or one-on-one personal 
> mails) a 
> >> reasonable  way to recruit people?
> > 
> > Well, the meeting mentioned is not an official IETF meeting to the 
> > best of my knowledge. But I think it's premature to call it 
> off topic 
> > for IETF lists.
> 
> Brian,
> 
> There is another issue here and it may call for reexamination 
> of the criteria for listing of public IETF-related mailing lists.
> 
> We periodically have a discussion about the dangers of RFCs 
> being mistaken for standards.  That discussion has produced 
> IESG disclaimers on independent-submission RFCs strong enough 
> as to be read as IETF rejection of ideas presented when there 
> is no such IETF consensus as well as proposals for even 
> stronger action.  But, at least IMO, there is at least as 
> much, and probably more, danger in what now appears to be a 
> trend toward "meeting at IETF" announcements for meetings 
> that have not gone through the BOF or WG charter/approval process.
> 
> The criteria for such listings now include only conformance 
> with the IPR rules with everything else being pretty much voluntary.
> Should we (or the IESG, or PESCI) be considering asking 
> external bodies/groups who want to be listed to agree to some 
> minimum [other] standards of conduct, such as not 
> representing themselves as IETF activities or connected with 
> the IETF standards process, either directly or through 
> hair-splitting language?
> 
>      john
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:46:37 -0400

--On Thursday, 20 October, 2005 07:30 -0700 "Hallam-Baker,
Phillip" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>...

I'm nt sure I see that as relevant to my suggestion.   No
newcomer-biting was intended by anything I said.  If our
expectations are clarified and written down, that seems to help
the newcomers more than anyone who is deeply embedded into the
culture.  Historically, our expectations have been that one
doesn't use language which a casual reader would infer implies
IETF endorsement or an IETF work item when there has been no
IETF review or consideration, one way or the other.   "Meeting
at the IETF" seriously blurs that boundary, whether
intentionally or not.  So, depending on the circumstances, may
bulk-mailing to some lists.  If our expectations are not clear,
then it is impossible to differentiate between letting something
happen through ignorance and then complaining about it (which
might reasonably be a case of newcomer-biting) or having someone
abuse unwritten rules through hair-splitting language.  If there
are clear enough that any violations are clear abuses, then we
(and any newcomer) are in a far better position, aren't we/they?

      john