Re: UPDATED: WG Action: Conclusion of The Operation of the IESG/IAB Nominating and Recall Committees (nomcom) (fwd)

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Jim,

Firstly I'm very sensitive to the spam magnet issue. In fact, when
the diffserv WG closed down, we killed its list for exactly that
reason, *but* activated a new list for continued discussion.

I don't see why nomcom is different from a technical topic - there
will inevitably be (hopefully minor) issues. But there is no
reason I would ever think to go to look at a web log just in case
something had been posted.

This isn't my call, but I believe the inevitable result will be
that any issues end up being debated on ietf@ietf.org, which
I don't think is optimal.

And I do think this needs to be clarified in IETF WG procedures,
but that is not a debate for this soon-to-be-ex-list.

     Brian

James M Galvin wrote:
> I didn't make the decision to close down the list, although I agree with
> it.  My primary reason for agreeing with it is related to hosting the
> list.  The list address is one of the single greatest magnets for spam
> on my server.  It ranks right up there with every other IETF list I
> host.  I'm sure others who host IETF lists have similar statistics.
>
>
> Setting that aside, the list associated with every other NOMCOM revision
> has closed when that work was completed, i.e., when the working group
> closed.  Personally, I like this model.
>
> When a working group closes it's mailing list should end also.  The
> purpose of the list is to support the work of the working group.
> Without a working group there's no one in charge of the list.  And in
> today's email environment that's just unacceptable.
>
> If a standard needs a "deployment" mailing list then let someone sponsor
> it, i.e., be in charge of it and arrange for it to get hosted.  It is
> consistent with my model for someone to volunteer to be in charge of an
> existing list and voluteer to keep it active.  Absent that, no working
> group, no list.
>
> Just my opinion of course.
>
>
> As to what to do with "new" issues that come up, perhaps that is a
> problem that needs to be considered in a larger context.  One suggestion
> is to check with the author and see if that person is keeping track.
>
> Perhaps the IETF needs a "tool" for collecting suggestions/comments
> about its documents so they can be considered during its next revision.
> A blog might be good for this.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>     Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:06:32 +0200
>     From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
>     To: James M Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>
>     Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
>     Subject: Re: UPDATED: WG Action: Conclusion of The Operation of the
>         IESG/IAB Nominating and Recall Committees (nomcom) (fwd)
>
>     Why? The normal convention is to keep the mailing list open
>     in case issues come up that might justify new activity.
>
>     (As I'm afraid one already did.)
>
>         Brian
>
>     James M Galvin wrote:
>     > With the conclusion of the working group, I will be closing down the
>     > mailing list.
>     >
>     > I'll wait a week to do this since this is the week of the IETF, just in
>     > case anyone has any last minute comments or questions.
>     >
>     > The archive will remain available essentially indefinitely.
>     >
>     > Jim

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>