>
> >> 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.
> >
> > [JM] For people who would like to provide comments but who are
> > non-participants, maybe we could provide them a web form. This would
> > spare them from needing to subscribe to a mailing list, but they
> > wouldn't see anything more than an automatic response ("Thank you for
> > your comments!") unless someone mailed them directly. (Let's not design
> > this interface in this thread, though. It's just a thought.)
> >
> > As for community participants, I'm not sure if the mailing list venue
> > (rswg, rfc-interest, or rsab) would make much of a difference when it
> > comes to their willingness to provide comments.
>
> That's true (and that's an experimental result from IETF experience).
> But my concern is more that if a member of the wider community replies
> only to the RSAB, their reply will not be automatically seen by the rest
> of the community (including the RSWG, the presumed creator of the
> document).
> IMHO that is not what RFC 9280 intended by "public comments".
>
> Brian
>
What if we tried something sort of in between?
In the initial call for comments, have the email to rfc-i & rswg explicitly
remind people that there is a public archive for the RSAB list if they want
to follow along. Before the comment period closes, we send a reminder email
about the comments closing and that people can see comments and discussion
in the public archive. (We can remind again when we send out decision
emails, but that's post-comments period.)
Hopefully that would point interested people to the comments/discussion,
without having potentially extraneous emails to rfc-i.
Alexis
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
