Hi Barry, I have read thought the discussion and have a few questions. As I understand the proposal, the intent is to have the two lists initially have the same membership. As you said: Our plan is to create the new list and pre-subscribe everyone who is subscribed to <ietf@xxxxxxxx> at that time. Of course, anyone could unsubscribe to either or both lists immediately or later, but we think that doing it this way would minimize the likelihood that people would miss important stuff because of the move, and folks can choose what they prefer from there. After the initial list creation, will new people be required to subscribe to each list separately, or will subscribing to the ietf@xxxxxxxx list also cause a subscription to the last-call@ietf list? I think this is an important issue as the value of each list is that there is a broad representation of people from the IETF community. Is it a desirable outcome if the lists become very different in membership? If the ietf@xxxxxxxx list becomes a lot smaller, is this a good outcome of the experiment, or a bad outcome? I am thinking that both lists should have the same membership, that is, one can’t unsubscribe from only one. This would preserve the broad community review of last calls and for community discussions, but still allow separate discussions. How are we to evaluate the experiment? I have have no doubt that it will achieve the goal of keeping the discussions separate. I think we should be defining other criteria in which to evaluate the results of the experiment. Also, a related question, how do new IETF participants know to subscribe to the IETF list these days? Do we have any way of knowing if current active IETF participants are subscribed? Perhaps, when registering for a meeting, the registration tool could offer to subscribe to the ietf@xxxxxxxx and last-call@xxxxxxxx lists. Thanks, Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
