On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:45 PM 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.
I'm not sure on what basis you make that claim, but I don't agree. The discussion in the WG is part of the consensus proces.
-Ekr
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
