Re: [Gendispatch] Ending [e-mail]

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 4/6/21 8:19 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> I think there's value in a set of technically capable people
> who have more or less nothing else in common working on
> making the Internet better because that's what they want to
> do. IMO that inherently requires that parts of the discussion
> are very noisy and very annoying. I figure that is necessary
> otherwise we'd need to start requiring that we have other things in 
> common, thereby falsifying the 2nd axiom above.
>
> Attempting to avoid that noise and annoyance seems to me
> to be missing a significant part of the point of the whole
> thing.
>
> And yes, I also expect, and am happy, that the above is not
> universally accepted amongst the set of people involved. And
> sure, the above is also idealistic and reality is messier,
> but that's also ok IMO. 

+1

The more I read of this thread, the more I think that the most toxic 
aspect of the ietf@ list is the people who incessantly complain about 
the toxicity of the ietf@ list to anyone (and to any list) they think 
will listen.

I'm sort of inclined to think there should be a new rule for the ietf@ 
list - you subscribe to this list voluntarily, and you can unsubscribe 
at any time.   You might not like it, but some people do find it 
valuable even with all of its warts, and believe that the list would be 
less valuable if only posts that nobody could possibly find 
objectionable were allowed.

The rule for being on the ietf@ list should be this: No complaining 
about the content on the ietf@ list, and no complaining about what 
you're missing out on by not being on the ietf@ list.

(If it's absolutely necessary to rename the list to something else so 
that people won't feel like they are somehow required to be on the list, 
I suggest [e-mail])

Keith