[address-policy-wg] [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]

Hi folks,

Jen Linkova <furry13 at gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm> wrote:
> [...]
>>In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for
>> IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness.
> [...]
> There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to
> address policy.

I fully agree with Jen here.  

If I take a look at last week's IPv6 WG session in London (agenda and
video at https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/) I
don't see *anything* there actually related to address policy.

@Aleksi: Maybe you could explain *why* you "think that a separate
mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness" at this
point?

> Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a
> mailing list happening in *another* mailing list.
> [...]

I also consider this approach rather rude, but I guess we should still
try to keep such matters of style separate from the actual topic at
hand.

In any case, discussion on shutting down the IPv6 WG mailing list
obviously doesn't belong on the address policy WG list; it would be a
decision to be made in the IPv6 working group.

That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also
expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG
discussions into "my" mailing list.  If you want to see something
similar (albeit "backwards") having happened in the past, take a look at
the IETF V6OPS WG mailing list before they forked SUNSET4.

> I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion,

Thank you, Jen!

As far as I'm concerned, I do archive the address policy WG, but I don't
generally follow it.  And I've got a strong impression that there are
others who actively monitor the IPv6 list but don't even archive the
address policy list.

> however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6
> list untouched.

So do I.

\begin{wg-chair-mode}
To deal with this question properly I suggest we follow a two step
approach:

- First we see *on the IPv6 WG mailing list*---and please set the rcpt
  accordingly---if there is some sort of consensus to propose a merger
  with the address policy WG list.

- If that consensus is actually reached, then as the second step the
  address policy WG should decide if they actually agree with our (IPv6)
  discussions moving there.

I haven't had time to talk about this with Jen and Dave directly, but as
far as I'm concerned if there is no further discussion on this on the
IPv6 mailing list, I'll consider that as consensus with Jen's statement
and assume the question settled.
\end{wg-chair-mode}


Cheers,

    Benedikt

-- 
Benedikt Stockebrand,                   Stepladder IT Training+Consulting
Dipl.-Inform.                           http://www.stepladder-it.com/

          Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects

BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/