I don't follow this reasoning, John: it's already the case that many IETF participants don't subscribe to the IETF discussion list, and subscribing to it is not in any way a requirement. Lots of people opt out and do not think they're opting out of participation in IETF consensus. Last-call announcements go to ietf-announce and are visible to people who subscribe to that, and not to this. Last-call discussions are often copied to the working group, as well. If anything, separating the lists might *increase* the number of people who explicitly subscribe to last-call discussions (but who don't want to deal with the high volume on this list). Barry On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 2:45 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --On Friday, September 13, 2019 13:09 -0700 Eric Rescorla > <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> 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. > >> > > > > I disagree with this. Part of the value proposition here is to > > allow people to engage with last calls and avoid the... > > unpleasantness... which is the ietf@ list. > > Ekr, > > I almost agree. There have certainly been weeks lately in which > I would classify the bulk of the traffic on the main IETF list > as unpleasant and have wished that much of hadn't reached me. > However, we claim that the basis of what we do is "IETF > consensus". Today, someone who opts out of the IETF list > essentially opts out of that consensus process no matter how > active they might be in, e.g., particular WGs. If we split the > list and the membership of the two lists diverges, I wonder if > honesty and transparency require us to adjust our vocabulary to > indicate, e.g., "consensus of those who chose to participate in > the IETF's broad final review process". > > best, > john >
