Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:11:05 -0500 (EST)

> From: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>

    > We shouldn't assume that FSF will not learn from feedbacks

Well, I don't know. RMS's intial response to my lengthy note (which I CC'd
this list, I tried to make it productive in tone) to the FSF board (although
the FSF is still basically RMS, as far as I can make out) was not indicative
of a change in course; and their appeals page was updated a day later, but
left basically unchanged - it continued to call for sending email to
[email-masked].

    >> And no doubt, if it continues to be allowed, it will happen again.

Perhaps "seemingly encouraged" (I meant, by the wording of the LC) would have
been a better phrase than "allowed".

    > Isn't that the right price to pay for an open forum? 

You will note that I explicitly did not, in my suggested change to the LC, say
"close the IETF list to non-subscriber posts". However, that's a long way from
hanging out a "Kick Me" sign, which is what the current LC text ('send
comments to [email-masked]') effectively amounts to, for those who don't
carefully read it, and notice that it's directed to 'the IETF community'.

    > If you know the secret handshake

That's rather unfair.

The IETF web site is easily findable, and we impose no barrier of any kind
(cost, qualifications, etc) to anyone joining any of our email lists. The
IETF is hardly a secret society which is picky about new blood - almost
_everyone_ on this list these days is 'new' since the 'old days' (circa 1970s
for a few of us).

	Noel

---

From: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:03:06 -0500

From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>...
>- it continued to call for sending email to [email-masked].
Point taken. But still, FSF and RMS may hold philosophically rigid
positions, they surely can't turn a deaf ear to proposals to help them
get their reasoned position heard, which is to say "this and like future
email campaigns do nothing to IETF community's receptiveness to FSF's
advocated position, a well thought-out note from the FSF would suffice."

>carefully read it, and notice that it's directed to 'the IETF
community'.

As someone else pointed out earlier, asking only "the IETF community" to
respond to LC and even explicitly state that "one should only respond
(to LC) if he's subscribed to foo and bar IETF mailing list" will
probably not deter people from 'drive-by' subscribing and posting of
knee-jerk comments. So it doesn't really solve the problem. Even IETF
participants can and do get their posting 'right' suspended for various
reasons so the problem is not strictly from 'outside people'.

>    > If you know the secret handshake
But that's what will amount to if (1) IETF announces that comments to LC
be posted to a new mailing list; and (2) only the regulars know that
"the real place to be heard is at [email-masked]"; and (3) no regulars
would take the risk to subscribe to the new mailing list. So no comment
on the new mailing list would effectively be heard.

>[The] IETF is hardly a secret society which is picky about new blood 
This is certainly not what my post was supposed to imply. 

>	Noel

Jerry Huang