Michael Dillon <wavetossed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > With the text above, don't be surprised when people learn that they can > become bona fide IETF members by subscribing to the IETF discussion list and > the new subscription volume swells exponentially. Given the contents of many > of the letters received on the patent issue, I would expect the majority of > those people to be willing, and capable of, subscribing to the IETF list in > order to submit a comment. > > Also, don't be surprised when the next time this issue arises, the FSF > encourages people to join the IETF WG discussing the next patent-encumbered > draft. Those would be positive steps. I don't think we object to hearing what people have to say about any topic simply because they happen to be FSF members. What we object to is a bunch of "me too" comments that present no new points, and are clearly coming from people who a) aren't also receiving them, and b) aren't participating in discussion. I do like that the IETF list allows non-subscribers to post, even though it makes these annoyances possible. However, if we do something that causes the FSF to encourage people to subscribe if they wish to comment, rather than encouraging people to do the sort of drive-by we've seen, we'd be happier and they'd be happier. Those people who don't feel like putting much time into it wouldn't subscribe; those people who do feel like putting some of their time into it would be more engaged; the number of substantively identical messages would be much more self-limiting if a significant proportion of the would-be activists were subscribed. -- Cos _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf