Hi, thanks for the feedback! On 2021-9-25, at 5:56, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 1. Make it explicitly a one-year experiment. If it fails (fewer than 3095 > subscribers, for example), drop it. we'll take that into consideration. > 2. Make it opt-out for meeting registrants. Ideally, it would also be opt-out for anyone who subscribes to any IETF list whatever, but I don't know if that's practicable. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "make it opt-out" - do you mean "subscribe by default"? FWIW, registration to a meeting has for some time now required creation of a Datatracker account, so the proposal would already cause meeting registrants to be subscribed to important-news. I personally think that subscribing anyone that is on any IETF mailing list (IIRC that is ~45K people) to important news is pushing things too far. But we could maybe defined what we'd consider an "active participant" to be, and discuss subscribing those? Maybe "has attended at least one of the last X meetings, or sent at last Y emails to IETF lists over the last Z years"? > 3. I do object strongly to classifying "Last call announcements for I-Ds" > as non-important. They are such a fundamental part of the IETF process that they really must go to everybody, and specifically to everybody who is > *not* in the WG concerned. In fact, this would amount to an end-run around RFC2026, for standards track and BCP drafts. There is no intention of classifying such emails as unimportant, and RFC2026 requiring use of ietf-announce is one reason why we decided to leave that list untouched. But sending something to ietf-announce is not achieving and probably has never achieved the goal of disseminating "to everybody", even around the time RFC2026 was written. ietf-announce has only ever reached the fraction of the community that had an active interest in receiving the disseminated content, and that fraction seems to have become quite small. This is causing real problems in many areas, for example, with announcing NomCom-related information. I disagree that creation of a new mailing list can be seen as somehow in conflict with RFC2026 when ietf-announce would continue to operate as it has. Thanks, Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
