Subject: Call for input: draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-00.txt

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:42:08 -0500 (EST)

As many have noticed, I have prepared a draft on an RFC 3933
experiment for mailing list management.

The goal is to give very liberal powers to the IESG equivelent to the
powers originally given to the IESG under RFC 2418 for working group
lists over all IETF lists.

The main reason for an experiment is that I believe that we can get
this published fast and a new BCP will take a while.

I clearly need to make the following changes:

1) Incorporate the IAB appeal response.

2) Make it clear that this applies to non-wg lists and to clarify what
    an IETF list is.  John Klensin has supplied excellent text for
    this.

I'm also asking the IESG to comment on whether they would find the
experiment useful.  I think one of the major requirements for an RFC
3933 experiment is whether the stakeholders would find the experiment
useful.
So I need to see if the IESG even wants this.

I'm interested in feedback on the following issues:

* Is 18 months too long for the experiment.  I don't think so but have
received one comment requesting 12 months.

* Are there limits that need to be placed on the IESG's authority?  My
  preference is to grant the same authority available under RFC 2418 for WG lists to all IETF lists.

* Are there other changes that need to be made?

--Sam

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

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 05:30:55 +0100

> * Are there other changes that need to be made?

You forgot this:

* Are there better ways for list members to spend their time in
service of the IETF than by coming up with new ways to censor and ban
on mailing lists?

Perhaps some simplification is in order; I believe an Act of Congress
might be a good model to follow in looking for something less complex
than the current policy.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:34:14 +0100

Sam Hartman wrote:

> * Is 18 months too long for the experiment.  I don't think
>   so but have received one comment requesting 12 months.

Is that about what I posted here in
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/18840> ?

In that case I wasn't sure if 12 or 18 months are long enough
to catch one application of the experiment, but apparently 12
months is a hard limit in RfC 3933 (?)

> * Are there other changes that need to be made?

Exclude the general list (this list) as special case, it's too
confusing if you experiment also with RfC 3005 and its special
appeal rules.

Unless Brian wants to "opt in" to this list experiment with the
general list.  But one stable point outside of the experiment
might be a good idea.
                              Bye, Frank