John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I really think that this is the right answer for our community.
>> The DMARC policy is not to forward, and we should respect it.
> How many IETF participants are we willing to lose over this
> principled position?
Define "participants".
I believe that all IESG, IAB, secretariat and WG chairs will grumpily change
mail providers (or stop using their work email) if they have to. Many have
already had to stop using work email addresses because of other stupidity
they can't control, and we already know that "gmail.com" does not suffer from
this direct problem (at present).
There are probably a few document authors that we might lose.
But, I've lost about five document authors while ROLL WG chair simply due to
attrition (they fell off the planet: even phoning them did not help), so
I'll bet most WG will not notice, it will be in the noise of other reasons.
So we are down to people reading the list. Most WGs that make progress have
5, sometimes 10 if they are lucky, actually active people who read, write and
review documents. If their contribution has been valuable, and they fall off
the list, and the WG chair notices, I'm sure something will happen.
meanwhile, btw, we are having problems actually scheduling enough WG
sessions, so maybe we can affort to "lose" a few. Maybe, we'll gain a bunch
more who can now actually reliably stay on the list.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature