On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:17:21PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > [...]. 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. [...] That's a problem then, because the RFC publication process for the IETF requires IETF-wide Last Calls. Rather than abandon the list, subscribers who are unhappy with certain debates should ignore them. Damaging or destroying the IETF's ability to publish RFCs is truly extreme, whether intentional or otherwise. I'm not saying that taking destructive steps could never be justified, but I am saying it's extreme, and in this case not justified or not yet. Nico --
