Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd)

[Lloyd Wood <l.wood at eim.surrey.ac.uk>]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, James M Galvin wrote:

> Although it is true that RFC2418 does not explicitly permit the "review"
> of messages submitted to elists from non-subscribers,

correct.

> it is in fact an accepted practice on IETF elists.

(or elitists, as they perhaps should be known?)

I like to request a public list of those lists. It would be
interesting to spot any patterns in the data.


> So much so that the IESG has published a statement regarding the
> policy and procedures of such practices:
> 
>     http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt

Note the use in that statement of the terms 'might be needed',
'persistent' and 'excessive'. midcom's list policy clearly does not
fall within that scope (a single email from me to midcom is neither
persistent nor excessive).


> Speaking for myself, I wish that all IETF elists could and would adopt
> the practice of reviewing all non-subscriber submissions for at least
> obvious irrelevance.

The IESG statement does not cover that. RFC2418 does not cover that.


> Just to be clear, I'm making a distinction between moderation and review
> to reject obvious irrelevance. 

irrelevance and its obviousness is in the eye of the beholder. I would
be extremely worried if messages were suppressed because e.g. a WG
chair had deemed a matter to be settled and would not permit further
discussion because further discussion is irrelevant (thinking of e.g.
recent heated EF technical debate on diffserv).

That's where this is heading.


> In that context, I agree with you that the phrasing in the
> notification message you received could be improved, but I think
> it's an unfair leap from "reviewing messages" to "midcom is not
> open" without even asking what the actual policy and practice is
> and confirming whether or not the AD and IESG are aware of it.

Just to be clear: midcom's policy falls outside stated IESG policy,
and we've agreed that it is not permitted by RFC2418.

midcom is reviewing messages, based on email address and then
content. midcom is not open. There's a direct causal relationship
between those two statements.


> Melinda's
> note makes it clear, at least to me, that the policy is consistent with
> the spirit of RFC2418 

see your first sentence...


> and the IESG statement indicated above.

which it isn't.


> Speaking as Co-Chair of this working group, unless you have a specific
> request for a change to RFC2418 or the IESG statement,

I'd like a statement that RFC2418 will be adhered to by mailing lists.

> I don't see any basis for continued discussion of this point on
> the poised elist.

so future emails will be filtered by the moderator?


> If you object to how the midcom elist is operating you need to take that
> up with the midcom-admin and the relevant AD.

done. on cc. On open IETF lists, I have the right to post what you
deem to be rubbish, and you have the right to choose to ignore me (and
the satisfaction of doing so). midcom's policy limits those rights a
priori without consensus or even persistent complaints from list
members.

regards,

L.

www.isoc.org: 'ISOC is active in areas such as censorship'. No kidding.

> Jim
> co-Chair of the POISSON Working Group

<L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>