Ray Pelletier wrote: > Alan, et al. > Message received. > I agree. > Changes being made. > Experiment provided valuable information. > Sorry for the pain. 1. Having IETF administration try new things is considerably better than having IETF administration NOT try new things. 2. It wouldn't be experimenting if it were guaranteed to succeed. 3. At this stage, anything that gets done is really (at least) two experiments, not one. One is whatever is intended to be the experiment. The other is whether the process of making changes gets done better, over time... 4. Having a per-meeting special list has an obvious and reasonable basis. However it makes each meeting's list a special case for IETF administration and for attendees. Possible variations to consider: a. Have the list name be permanent (such as "ietf-attendees") so that recipients can have a filing filter that they create one time. b. Per Eric's suggestion, at registration time ask whether the registrant wants to be added to the list. Subscriptions are not removed after an ietf meeting. If someone wants to be removed, they use the usual unsubscription techniques (which, of course, also encourages having the standardized list-unsubscribe header.) c. Or, list membership is automatic with registration -- given the specific nature of this list, making membership be involuntary isn't necessarily unreasonable. If the registrant's email address is already subscribed, of course they don't get a second subscription. (List software is usually pretty good at reporting already-subscribed membership.) d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf