Yes, I was aware an AD can participate in a WG, but was not sure if
the AD can do so in a WG where there might be proposed working items
authored by the AD. A recusal consideration for a conflict, if any,
would be the proper recourse.
Thanks for your fair responses. I appreciate it.
--
Hector Santos,
https://secure.santronics.com
https://twitter.com/hectorsantos
On 7/6/2020 12:43 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 8:35 PM Hector Santos <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
1) Curious, are these Mail List Server (MLS) developers active
participants of the WG list? Lurkers? Was there a consideration to
include a MLS developer participant that is active in the WG? I'm
sure
you are aware SSI (Santronics Software, Inc) has a MLS albeit
commercial, not free, not open source.
The ones I've approached are not here, so that's why I reached out to
them. You, on the other hand, are already participating, and are free
to give your perspective.
2) Was Mailman asked (the other two MLS were not) if a simple DNS
lookup can be considered? IMO, as a MLS developer, it would be less
coding than making a more complex change with this proposal or ARC.
Given the proposal would be asking MLS developers to finally make
changes to their code, it opens an opportunity to explore other
available well-defined, empirically proven to work "running code"
options.
No, I have not put that question to them. If they join the list, you
could ask them here; if they don't, you can reach out to them to make
that inquiry.
3) And this hurts to ask, but I believe it is a natural "IETF
Discuss"
question to ask, is there an AD vs Editor conflict here? It is
more of
a general question and not specifically address to you as WG AD and
the proposal editor. I'm sure you can be fair, but nonetheless, I
have
an active implementer "fairness" concern with each of these itemize
questions.
Fair question.
Area directors are not barred from participating in working groups.
If the WG were to choose to adopt this draft, for example, the chairs
would have the choice of picking a different editor, as they do with
any other document. It would be the chairs that make consensus calls
as needed as the document evolves. They run the Working Group Last
Call. Once it gets sent up for IETF-wide Last Call, some other Area
Director would step in to run it through that part of the process
(probably Barry, the other ART AD, but not necessarily). And when it
gets to IESG balloting, I would recuse myself. If at any point it
looks like a conflict of interest is possible, we tag other Area
Director(s) to review it for undue influence.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
--
Hector Santos,
https://secure.santronics.com
https://twitter.com/hectorsantos
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
