Subject: RE: IESG Statement on disruptive posting

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:05:54 -0500

Brian,

	Thanks for the clarification!

--
Eric 

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:57 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: 'Sam Hartman'; [email-masked]
--> Subject: Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting
--> 
--> Eric,
--> 
--> Gray, Eric wrote:
--> ...
--> > 	... there is a need to define who
--> > is what, he has a valid point.  I moderate the MPLS 
--> mailing list, but
--> > there are others who are authorized to do so as well - 
--> including the
--> > ADs and WG Chairs.  I assume this is true of other 
--> mailing lists as
--> > well, and I do not think that it is obvious to everyone 
--> who is on the
--> > list of people with authority to manage each list.
--> 
--> That is the reason for the specific reference to the administrators
--> listed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi.
--> > 
--> > 	... the comment that Brian's terminology use
--> > is not consistent (Brian says "the moderators or 
--> maintainers of IETF 
--> > mailing lists that are not WG mailing lists" in the 
--> beginning of his
--> > message and "where the administrators are listed" later on), 
--> 
--> It's not *my* terminology, it's an IESG statement.
--> The inconsistent language in the two parts of the statement has
--> been noted.
--> 
--> > ... reasonable in saying that a decision 
--> > should name the AD consulted
--> 
--> Reasonable and should, yes.
--> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi lists the
--> Areas, which gets you to a choice of two ADs at most, so the
--> responsible AD is not hard to find.
--> 
--> > 	I believe that at least a formal notification must occur and it
--> > must list those people involved in making the decision. 
--> 
--> Yes, I agree.
--> 
--> > 	It would also be good from the list administrator's perspective
--> > if the notification was at least backed up by the 
--> consulted AD - if it
--> > does not in fact come from the consulted AD(s).
--> 
--> Not sure I see why, but I'd certainly expect the AD to be
--> copied.
--> 
--> > ... if there are lists that are
--> > maintained by the IETF site that do not properly belong under IESG
--> > authority, 
--> 
--> Those would not be at 
--> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi,
--> so would be out of scope.
--> 
--> > or if there are lists maintained elsewhere that are kept on
--> > behalf of the IETF, but do not fall under IESG authority. 
-->  I don't know 
--> > that such lists exist, but it is possible that they do.  
--> 
--> If they do, they *are* are at
--> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi
--> 
--> > 	Would BoF mailing lists fall into this category?
--> 
--> If they are listed at 
--> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi.
--> 
--> > ... there should 
--> > be an announcement that "such-and-such" list now falls under the
--> > IESG authority 
--> 
--> Ideally yes, but since the list of such lists is public
--> at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi,
--> this is low on my list of change requests to the secretariat.
--> 
-->       Brian
--> 
--> 

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