Hi, Bob. > As I understand the proposal, the intent is to have the two lists initially have the same membership. Right: initially, so that people don't miss anything in the transition. > 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? They will be separate lists. > 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. That's not meant to change. The IETF discussion list does not currently have everyone subscribed. People will choose what to subscribe to, and that shouldn't change. I expect both lists to have broad representation... but not universal representation, and not the same representation. > 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? It is an expected outcome that the list memberships will be different. If either list's membership becomes "a lot smaller", that, in itself, is neither a good nor a bad outcome. I would say that a bad outcome would be significantly less last-call discussion. A bad outcome would also be bad community experience with the result, based on discussion/survey after we've tried it for a while. > 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. This is a really good point, and, I think, a good suggestion for a solution. The IESG will discuss that as we plan registration for IETF 107. Barry
