Hi all,
On 1/27/25 6:12 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi John,
At 03:09 PM 24-01-2025, John C Klensin wrote:
However, if we look at rfc-interest through the same lens (as I have
obviously been doing), most of the traffic there in a given month is
about RFC design and production details (as has been a large part of
the intent for decades), with very little about policy. So I think
it would be reasonable to substantially repeat your assertion about
hostility to RFC consumers above with "rfc-interest" substituted for
"RSWG". I hope the answer is not that we need an "rfc-policy" list,
but maybe that is where the combination of your reasoning about the
RSWG list and mine about the rfc-interest one takes us.
I labelled my reply as off-topic.
1. The on-topic discussion was about a mailing list which is not this
mailing list. Nobody bothered to ask the people on the mailing
list which might be affected by the proposed change whether they
are agreeable to the change. Is that okay?
[JM] The rfc-interest list is owned by the RFC Production Center. I
started this discussion with RSAB and RSWG mailing lists because the
draft rfc-interest list description mentions both groups and because
rswg and rfc-interest list scopes are issue #1 in the rswg issue tracker
[1].
The big change in the rfc-interest description is that new policy
discussions are mentioned explicitly and that they should happen on the
rswg list. There is an ongoing discussion about where RSAB "call for
comment" discussions should be held.
2. The other mailing list has over six times more subscribers than this
mailing list. It's how things are. I can either respect the wishes
of those people or tell them to move.
[JM] I don't think anyone is saying that subscribers to rfc-interest
should move. The list still has a purpose, which is to be a venue for
discussing the more operational aspects of RFCs (style, formatting, tools).
3. The last discussion on the other mailing list was about RFCs and
standards. The discussion occurred, in parallel, on an IETF mailing
list and that mailing list. I didn't see any public complaints
about that. I guess that it is because someone thought that it
might be a good place to go and ask for feedback and most of the
residents were okay with that.
[JM] With an updated list description, it will be easier to direct
conversations to the appropriate mailing lists.
Best regards,
Jean
[1] https://github.com/rfcseries-wg/new-topics/issues/1
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
