Subject: [appsdir] Query regarding where reviews are sent

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 23:25:38 +0300

An interesting discussion on the IESG list leads me to ask a question here:

Right now, the guidelines for where to send reviews say to send to:

    To: [email-masked], 
[email-masked], 
[email-masked]

and if it's in Last Call:

    Cc: [email-masked]

What would you say if instead it was, "If in Last Call, cc 
[email-masked], unless you're uncomfortable doing so, in which case cc 
[email-masked]"?

In other words, would you think it would be OK to default to sending to 
the main ietf list, only sending to iesg if you thought (for example) 
that the review would cause some ruckus on the ietf list and you'd 
rather not deal with that?

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 23:42:34 +0200 (CEST)

On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Pete Resnick wrote:

> What would you say if instead it was, "If in Last Call, cc [email-masked], 
> unless you're uncomfortable doing so, in which case cc [email-masked]"?
>
> In other words, would you think it would be OK to default to sending to the 
> main ietf list, only sending to iesg if you thought (for example) that the 
> review would cause some ruckus on the ietf list and you'd rather not deal 
> with that?

Well, given the whole IESG acts on behalf of the whole IETF people, adding 
the large mailing list instead of the restricted IESG only is nothing 
wrong.

This will, somehow, expose also much more what the varius directorates do, 
which is positive... What I'm thinking about is the fact that the 
directorates are there to support the area ADs in their job, and thus the 
current version of the sugested addressing schema is in line with this (we 
advise directly the ADs and the whole other ADs), without botherting (to 
deal with) the whole IETF: in this situation we are the "proviate advisor" 
of the ADs... If we send reviews to the whole IETF, then we also advise 
the ADs, but we put a stronger accent on what we do, and somebody might 
think of this as a more "authoritative" opinion on a draft.

So, I do not have (yet) a strong opinion in favour or against...

all the best!
> _______________________________________________
> appsdir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 15:36:49 -0700

Hi Pete,
>An interesting discussion on the IESG list leads me to ask a question here:

[snip]

>[email-masked], unless you're uncomfortable doing so, in which case 
>cc [email-masked]"?
>
>In other words, would you think it would be OK to default to sending 
>to the main ietf list, only sending to iesg if you thought (for 
>example) that the review would cause some ruckus on the ietf list 
>and you'd rather not deal with that?

The ruckus is not a problem; it's the unpleasantness which is a 
disincentive.  I am okay with sending reviews to [email-masked] 
instead of [email-masked].  I'll say let's try it if you think that it 
is a good idea.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 12:56:02 +0100

> unless you're uncomfortable doing so, in which case cc [email-masked]"?

Do we really want to clutter that list with technical discussion?