Although it is true that RFC2418 does not explicitly permit the "review" of messages submitted to elists from non-subscribers, it is in fact an accepted practice on IETF elists. 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 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. If someone has the time it would be nice to have a more careful review to ensure messages are on-topic as described by a Working Group's charter, but that is certainly not required. The first would go a long way towards eliminating spam on IETF elists. Just to be clear, I'm making a distinction between moderation and review to reject obvious irrelevance. 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. Melinda's note makes it clear, at least to me, that the policy is consistent with the spirit of RFC2418 and the IESG statement indicated above. Speaking as Co-Chair of this working group, unless you have a specific request for a change to RFC2418 or the IESG statement, I don't see any basis for continued discussion of this point on the poised elist. If you object to how the midcom elist is operating you need to take that up with the midcom-admin and the relevant AD. Jim co-Chair of the POISSON Working Group
IETF mailing lists are intended for OPEN discussion; the benefits (cross-pollination between lists, lack of inhibition about stating your opinions) are widely recognised as outweighing widely-accepted drawbacks (e.g. Peter Lewis advertising every forum everywhere he can think of, allisat going on yet another hallucinogen-induced trip down memory lane). midcom is not open. midcom should not be part of the IETF, much less a working group. No, I don't care that having a moderator-in-the-middle filtering everything is in the spirit of the midcom charter and must be for my own good. I _really_ don't like the concept of an IETF-approved poster to a mailing list on an IETF-run server. We can do our own filtering, if we choose to, and we don't need the IETF to do it for us. Moderator approval of individual posters is outside the spirit of RFC2418, and would require AD and IESG approval. What are we coming to? L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:00:40 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mail sent to midcom Your mail to 'midcom' with the subject: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Only approved posters may post without moderator approval. Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision.