Hi Jean, RFC9280 explicitly mentions the rfc-interest@ list to send the community call there:
> The RSAB seeks such input by, at a minimum, sending a notice to the > rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org (mailto:rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org) > email discussion list or to its successor or future equivalent. Also I didn’t hear anybody saying that we should not send the call there, but there was a concern to have any policy-related discussion there. So, I think we still want to sent the call to rfc-interest@. Mirja > On 29. Jan 2025, at 23:23, Jean Mahoney <jmaho...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > On 1/28/25 4:33 PM, Alexis Rossi 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. >> > >> > [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. > > [JM] If we agree that rfc-interest _won't_ be the default list for RSAB's > calls for comments, then I could update the list description: > > Current: > > A general discussion list about the RFC Series and its operational > processes. > > The rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org mailing list is meant be a focal > point for information and discussion about the RFC Series and related > practices. For example, topics appropriate to this list may include > aspects related to RFC style, formatting, and tools. > > Please note that collaboration on new RFC Series policies should > happen on the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) mailing list > (rswg@rfc-editor.org). The RFC Series Advisory Board (RSAB) may > initiate and manage community calls for comments on proposals that > have gained consensus within the RSWG on the rfc-interest@rfc- > editor.org list [RFC9280]. Topics that are out of scope will be > redirected as needed. > > To contact the list owners, use the following email address: > rfc-interest-ow...@rfc-editor.org > > Perhaps (removed mention of calls for comment in the 3rd paragraph, added > owner info in the 4th paragraph): > > A general discussion list about the RFC Series and its operational > processes. > > The rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org mailing list is meant be a focal > point for information and discussion about the RFC Series and related > practices. For example, topics appropriate to this list may include > aspects related to RFC style, formatting, and tools. > > Please note that collaboration on new RFC Series policies should > happen on the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG) mailing list > (rswg@rfc-editor.org) [RFC9280]. Topics that are out of scope will > be redirected as needed. > > This list is owned by the RFC Production Center. To contact the list > owners, use the following email address: rfc-interest-owner@rfc- > editor.org > > Thanks! > Jean > >> Alexis > > -- > rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
