Hi Dan, Trying to focus on the topics that have not already been covered heavily... On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 11:11:28AM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote: > > On 8/14/20 10:30 AM, Christian Huitema wrote: > > > > The question is, what to do? > [...] > > Fundamentally, we don't have a problem with language in RFCs so we don't > need to "fix" that which is not broken. We might have a problem with abusive > language on mailing lists (guilty as charged) but that's different and it is > best solved differently. I don't think that "language in RFCs" or "abusive language on mailing lists" is what Christian was asking about. Rather, the departure of many prominent IETF contributors from the membership list of ietf@xxxxxxxx has placed us in a (or, perhaps, excacerbated an existing) situation where the membership of what is nominally the "general IETF discussion list" is not representative of the IETF community. As someone who is, at times, charged with assessing IETF consensus, I feel that this calls into question the utility of the ietf@xxxxxxxx list for determining consensus. Personally, I now have significant doubts that the results of discussion on ietf@xxxxxxxx will reflect IETF consensus. If the general list isn't useful for determining consensus, some re-thinking of its purpose and procedures is likely in order, as Christian alludes to. Thanks, Ben
