On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 03:41:26PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote: > 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. Note that, at present, IETF Last Call discussion on documents occurs on the last-call@xxxxxxxx list, not the ietf@xxxxxxxx general list. Perhaps that reduced some peoples' sense of obligation to remain on ietf@xxxxxxxx, though that is speculation. -Ben
