<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
  <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version 1.3.3 -->

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "../Tools/rfcbootstrap/rfc2629.dtd" [
]>

<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc strict="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>

<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-nottingham-discussion-recharter-00" category="info" updates="3005">

  <front>
    <title>Rechartering the IETF Discussion List</title>

    <author initials="M." surname="Nottingham" fullname="Mark Nottingham">
      <organization></organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>made in</street>
          <city>Prahran</city>
          <region>VIC</region>
          <country>Australia</country>
        </postal>
        <email>mnot@mnot.net</email>
        <uri>https://www.mnot.net/</uri>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date />

    <area>General</area>
    <workgroup>GENDISPATCH</workgroup>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

    <abstract>


<t>This document updates RFC3005, the charter of the IETF discussion list.</t>



    </abstract>


    <note title="Note to Readers">


<t><spanx style="emph">RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication</spanx></t>

<t>The issues list for this draft can be found at <eref target="https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/discussion-recharter">https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/discussion-recharter</eref>.</t>

<t>The most recent (often, unpublished) draft is at <eref target="https://mnot.github.io/I-D/discussion-recharter/">https://mnot.github.io/I-D/discussion-recharter/</eref>.</t>

<t>Recent changes are listed at <eref target="https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-pages/discussion-recharter">https://github.com/mnot/I-D/commits/gh-pages/discussion-recharter</eref>.</t>

<t>See also the draft’s current status in the IETF datatracker, at
<eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-discussion-recharter/">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-discussion-recharter/</eref>.</t>


    </note>


  </front>

  <middle>


<section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">

<t>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.’<xref target="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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>This draft contends that the IETF discussion list is not an appropriate venue for that, because it is not representative of the IETF community <xref target="representative"/>, and because it is not productive <xref target="unproductive"/>. <xref target="recommendations"/> recommends re-scoping the charter of the IETF discussion list to reflect this.</t>

<section anchor="representative" title="The IETF discussion list is not representative">

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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:</t>

<texttable>
      <ttcol align='left'>List</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Members</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>Overlap</ttcol>
      <ttcol align='left'>% on IETF list</ttcol>
      <c>6MAN</c>
      <c>1,698</c>
      <c>246</c>
      <c>14.5%</c>
      <c>DISPATCH</c>
      <c>436</c>
      <c>111</c>
      <c>25.5%</c>
      <c>DNSOP</c>
      <c>1,041</c>
      <c>204</c>
      <c>19.6%</c>
      <c>GENDISPATCH</c>
      <c>54</c>
      <c>37</c>
      <c>68.5%</c>
      <c>OPSAWG</c>
      <c>423</c>
      <c>100</c>
      <c>23.6%</c>
      <c>QUIC</c>
      <c>853</c>
      <c>121</c>
      <c>14.2%</c>
      <c>RTGWG</c>
      <c>610</c>
      <c>119</c>
      <c>19.5%</c>
      <c>SECDISPATCH</c>
      <c>153</c>
      <c>50</c>
      <c>32.7%</c>
      <c>TLS</c>
      <c>1,257</c>
      <c>134</c>
      <c>10.7%</c>
      <c>WEBTRANS</c>
      <c>110</c>
      <c>39</c>
      <c>35.5%</c>
      <c>WPACK</c>
      <c>98</c>
      <c>24</c>
      <c>24.5%</c>
</texttable>

<t>When combined, the lists above have 5,355 unique addresses subscribed; only 628 (11.7%) of them are on the IETF discussion list.</t>

<t>The proportion of subscribed RFC authors is another lens to examine the IETF discussion list with. Again, this has many shortcomings, but can nevertheless help us to understand how representative the IETF discussion list is.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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).</t>

<t>That said, discussion on the IETF discussion list does not imply knowledge or consent by the IETF community as a whole.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="unproductive" title="The IETF discussion list is unproductive">

<t><xref target="RFC3005"/> also specifies that ‘considerable latitude is allowed’ in what is considered acceptable on this mailing list.</t>

<t>This latitude has helped to make it difficult for the community to come to an agreement about the boundaries of discussion. <xref target="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.’</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>The mechanisms in <xref target="RFC3005"/> are not adequate to reasonably guide discussion on this list to be productive, and as a result anecdotal evidence suggests that several participants are choosing to leave it, thereby making it even less representative of the IETF community.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="recommendations" title="Re-Scoping the IETF discussion list">

<t>This document updates <xref target="RFC3005"/> by recommending that:</t>

<t><list style="numbers">
  <t>Discussion of IETF Last Calls continue to take place on the last-calls mailing list.</t>
  <t>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.</t>
  <t>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.’</t>
  <t>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.</t>
  <t>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.</t>
  <t>Cross-area review should continue using a combination of review directorates, cross-participation, AD oversight and the Last Call discussion list.</t>
  <t>There should be no explicit or implicit requirement for IETF leadership or any other person to be subscribed to the IETF discussion list.</t>
  <t>Operational documents (such as <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/">https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/</eref>, <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/">https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/</eref> and <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/">https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/</eref>) 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. Likewise, presentations to new IETF participants should be updated.</t>
  <t>Operational documents should be updated to explain the role of the DISPATCH groups more clearly to newcomers.</t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations" title="Security Considerations">

<t>The security of the Internet had better not depend upon the IETF discussion list.</t>

</section>


  </middle>

  <back>

    <references title='Normative References'>





<reference  anchor="RFC2119" target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119'>
<front>
<title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author initials='S.' surname='Bradner' fullname='S. Bradner'><organization /></author>
<date year='1997' month='March' />
<abstract><t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification.  These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents.  This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14'/>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2119'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC2119'/>
</reference>



<reference  anchor="RFC3005" target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3005'>
<front>
<title>IETF Discussion List Charter</title>
<author initials='S.' surname='Harris' fullname='S. Harris'><organization /></author>
<date year='2000' month='November' />
<abstract><t>The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) discussion mailing list furthers the development and specification of Internet technology through discussion of technical issues, and hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, meetings, and procedures.  As this is the most general IETF mailing list, considerable latitude is allowed. Advertising, whether to solicit business or promote employment opportunities, falls well outside the range of acceptable topics, as do discussions of a personal nature.  This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='45'/>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='3005'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC3005'/>
</reference>




    </references>




  </back>

<!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>

