Internet DRAFT - draft-nottingham-discussion-recharter
draft-nottingham-discussion-recharter
GENDISPATCH M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft August 17, 2020
Updates: 3005 (if approved)
Intended status: Informational
Expires: February 18, 2021
Rechartering the IETF Discussion List
draft-nottingham-discussion-recharter-00
Abstract
This document updates RFC3005, the charter of the IETF discussion
list.
Note to Readers
_RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_
The issues list for this draft can be found at
https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/discussion-recharter [1].
The most recent (often, unpublished) draft is at
https://mnot.github.io/I-D/discussion-recharter/ [2].
Recent changes are listed at https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-
pages/discussion-recharter [3].
See also the draft's current status in the IETF datatracker, at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-discussion-
recharter/ [4].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 18, 2021.
Nottingham Expires February 18, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Rechartering the IETF Discussion List August 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. The IETF discussion list is not representative . . . . . 3
1.2. The IETF discussion list is unproductive . . . . . . . . 4
2. Re-Scoping the IETF discussion list . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The IETF discussion list was chartered to '[further] the development
and specification of Internet technology through discussion of
technical issues, and [host] discussions of IETF direction, policy,
meetings and procedures.'[RFC3005] It is thus considered the primary
venue where the operation of the IETF is discussed, as well as the
default home for technical discussions that don't have a more focused
venue.
Over time, it has become the favoured venue for the IESG to 'take the
temperature' of the IETF as a whole, especially for proposals that
affect many either administratively or technically. Support on the
list is taken as a sign that there is support within the IETF
overall; objections on the list can stop a proposal from being
enacted.
This draft contends that the IETF discussion list is not an
appropriate venue for that, because it is not representative of the
IETF community Section 1.1, and because it is not productive
Nottingham Expires February 18, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Rechartering the IETF Discussion List August 2020
Section 1.2. Section 2 recommends re-scoping the charter of the IETF
discussion list to reflect this.
1.1. The IETF discussion list is not representative
The IETF discussion list is often said to be the place where the IETF
community comes together. Discussion there often influences
decisions made about the direction of the organisation, as well as
specific technology choices. However, measuring how representative
it is of the IETF community is difficult.
One way to approximate is to compare its membership with other IETF
lists. Although this has many limitations (e.g., some may use
different addresses; some may have subscribed and then disabled
delivery rather than unsubscribing; subscription to a mailing list is
only a weak proxy for participation in the IETF), it is nevertheless
illuminating.
As of writing, the IETF discussion list has 1,751 members who have
made their e-mail address public; 29 members have not made their
addresses public.
Comparing its membership to a sample of other IETF mailing lists, we
find that there are typically many members that are not taking part
on the IETF discussion list:
+-------------+---------+---------+----------------+
| List | Members | Overlap | % on IETF list |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------------+
| 6MAN | 1,698 | 246 | 14.5% |
| DISPATCH | 436 | 111 | 25.5% |
| DNSOP | 1,041 | 204 | 19.6% |
| GENDISPATCH | 54 | 37 | 68.5% |
| OPSAWG | 423 | 100 | 23.6% |
| QUIC | 853 | 121 | 14.2% |
| RTGWG | 610 | 119 | 19.5% |
| SECDISPATCH | 153 | 50 | 32.7% |
| TLS | 1,257 | 134 | 10.7% |
| WEBTRANS | 110 | 39 | 35.5% |
| WPACK | 98 | 24 | 24.5% |
+-------------+---------+---------+----------------+
When combined, the lists above have 5,355 unique addresses
subscribed; only 628 (11.7%) of them are on the IETF discussion list.
The proportion of subscribed RFC authors is another lens to examine
the IETF discussion list with. Again, this has many shortcomings,
Nottingham Expires February 18, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Rechartering the IETF Discussion List August 2020
but can nevertheless help us to understand how representative the
IETF discussion list is.
As of 11 August 2020, the RFC Editor queue contained 167 drafts,
which had 352 unique author addresses. Of that group, 83 (23.6%) are
also members of the IETF discussion list.
Using these two imperfect measurements, we can conclude that the
entire IETF community is definitely not represented on the IETF
discussion list; roughly, only 20-30% of both groups cross-
participate. It's more difficult to draw other conclusions (such as
what an acceptable level of representation should be, or why IETF
participants choose not to subscribe to the IETF discussion list).
That said, discussion on the IETF discussion list does not imply
knowledge or consent by the IETF community as a whole.
1.2. The IETF discussion list is unproductive
[RFC3005] also specifies that 'considerable latitude is allowed' in
what is considered acceptable on this mailing list.
This latitude has helped to make it difficult for the community to
come to an agreement about the boundaries of discussion. [RFC3005]
empowers the IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director or a sergeant-
at-arms (SAA) appointed by the Chair to 'restrict posting by a
person, or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate and
represents a pattern of abuse.'
Subsequently, the SAA developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP)
in consultation with the community, in an effort to assure that the
community understood how this power would be used, that it was used
in a fair and non-discriminatory fashion, and so that participants
had more confidence about what was appropriate for the list.
When that power was recently exercised, there was considerable
pushback within the community about its use, and the IETF Chair
directed the SAA to rescind the restriction.
Without examining the issue as to whether it was appropriate for the
SAA to use their power to restrict posting in that instance, this
incident has made it clear that the tools available to the SAA to
guide the nature of the discussion - even once it's declared to be
off-topic - are blunt.
The mechanisms in [RFC3005] are not adequate to reasonably guide
discussion on this list to be productive, and as a result anecdotal
Nottingham Expires February 18, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Rechartering the IETF Discussion List August 2020
evidence suggests that several participants are choosing to leave it,
thereby making it even less representative of the IETF community.
2. Re-Scoping the IETF discussion list
This document updates [RFC3005] by recommending that:
1. Discussion of IETF Last Calls continue to take place on the last-
calls mailing list.
2. The IESG should not consider the IETF discussion list as an
appropriate venue for notifying IETF participants of its actions
or items under consideration. More suitable channels include the
IETF Announcements list and the GENDISPATCH Working Group,
depending on the notification.
3. The IESG should not consider the IETF discussion list as
representative of the broader IETF community. As noted above,
many participants are not active there, and some of those who are
amplify their positions to distort a 'reading of the room.'
4. IETF participants who wish to make proposals about or discuss the
IETF's direction, policy, meetings and procedures should do so in
GENDISPATCH or other Working Group, if one more specific to that
topic should exist.
5. IETF participants who wish to make proposals about or discuss
technical issues should do so in the most appropriate Working
Group or Area mailing list to the topic - ideally publishing an
Internet-Draft to further that discussion as appropriate. Topics
without an obvious home and cross-area topics have been proven to
be well-handled by the DISPATCH-style Working Groups.
6. Cross-area review should continue using a combination of review
directorates, cross-participation, AD oversight and the Last Call
discussion list.
7. There should be no explicit or implicit requirement for IETF
leadership or any other person to be subscribed to the IETF
discussion list.
8. Operational documents (such as
https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/ [5],
https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/ [6] and
https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/ [7]) should be
rewritten to reflect this understanding of the role of the IETF
discussion list. In particular, newcomers to the IETF should not
be steered towards subscribing to the IETF discussion list.
Nottingham Expires February 18, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Rechartering the IETF Discussion List August 2020
Likewise, presentations to new IETF participants should be
updated.
9. Operational documents should be updated to explain the role of
the DISPATCH groups more clearly to newcomers.
3. Security Considerations
The security of the Internet had better not depend upon the IETF
discussion list.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3005] Harris, S., "IETF Discussion List Charter", BCP 45,
RFC 3005, DOI 10.17487/RFC3005, November 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3005>.
4.2. URIs
[1] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/discussion-recharter
[2] https://mnot.github.io/I-D/discussion-recharter/
[3] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-pages/discussion-recharter
[4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-discussion-
recharter/
[5] https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/
[6] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/
[7] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/
Author's Address
Nottingham Expires February 18, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Rechartering the IETF Discussion List August 2020
Mark Nottingham
made in
Prahran, VIC
Australia
Email: mnot@mnot.net
URI: https://www.mnot.net/
Nottingham Expires February 18, 2021 [Page 7]
