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

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:53:38 -0800

As I have said before, I do not consider it a good procedure to discuss 
changing of mailing list management procedures at the same time as an 
extremely contentious application of the existing rules is still waiting 
for a decision.

I wish to comment on the draft, but wish to do so no earlier than a week 
after the IESG hands down its decision, for the reasons given in an earlier 
mail to this list today.

                       Harald

--On 31. januar 2006 21:42 -0500 Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:41:50 +0100

At 07:53 01/02/2006, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>As I have said before, I do not consider it a good procedure to 
>discuss changing of mailing list management procedures at the same 
>time as an extremely contentious application of the existing rules 
>is still waiting for a decision.

You do not want to change your [email-masked] rules 
before I am banned for demanding that you respect the IETF 
[email-masked] rules, and acting as if you did.

I think everybody has understood it now.
jfc

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:00:21 -0500

>>>>> "Frank" == Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]> writes:

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

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

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

No, I was actually referring to an off-list comment.

I don't believe that 12 months is a hard limit.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:25:46 -0600

> I don't believe that 12 months is a hard limit.

Hi, Sam,

I'm assuming that Frank was looking at this text:

   1. An I-D is written describing the proposed new or altered
      procedure.  A statement of the problem expected to be resolved is
      desirable but not required (the intent is to keep the firm
      requirements for such an experiment as lightweight as possible).
      Similarly, specific experimental or evaluative criteria, although
      highly desirable, are not required -- for some of the process
      changes we anticipate, having the IESG reach a conclusion at the
      end of the sunset period that the community generally believes
      things to be better (or worse) will be both adequate and
      sufficient.  The I-D must state an explicit "sunset" timeout
      typically, not to exceed one year after adoption.

Now that RFC 3933 is a BCP, IESG gets to decide what this text actually 
means in practice, and the community gets to decide whether IESG got it 
right, but on the particular issue related to 
draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-00.txt, the concern was that IESG might 
agree to an experiment but there is no opportunity to gain experience with 
the proposed change in the next twelve months.

Even if it is necessary to be legalistic, I would be disappointed if having 
the IESG say "we're going to do this, the next time there's a mailing list 
banning action requested" didn't allow the IESG to wait 14 months and carry 
out the experiment on the first request - my concern when we submitted this 
text was that an experiment might run actively forever without evaluation, 
not that an experiment might not start for 14 months.

So, I think I agree with Sam's interpretation in this specific case.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:07:45 +0100

Spencer Dawkins wrote:

>| The I-D must state an explicit "sunset" timeout typically,
>| not to exceed one year after adoption.

No MUSTard, only a hallucination on my side...  Sorry, Frank