Re: [Gendispatch] Ending [e-mail]

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Rob,

I share your (and others) negative opinion of the IETF list. However, I
think it's also clear from this discussion that there is significant
opposition to having no "general" list at all.

>From my perspective, a lot of the problem is not so much that the list is
general, but that it is largely unmoderated. Long painful experience shows
that communities need tending if they are not to descend into a toxic mess,
and moderation is an important part of that tending. Our WG lists seem to
do better both because they are tightly scoped and because the chairs are
empowered to manage the discussion. In that vein, I think what's needed is:

- Having alternate venues for all normal business of the IETF, so that
nobody needs to subscribe to [e-mail]
- Much more active moderation on [e-mail], with the intent of
significantly reducing the level of acrimony and endless arguments.

We are well on our way to the first. I recognize the second would require
an RFC update, and I would support such a proposal.

-Ekr


On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 9:20 AM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 7:48 AM Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>  Shutting down this venue would only force it somewhere else, or perhaps
>> underground.
>>
>
> That is the goal. The theory is that useful IETF content will find another
> IETF list, and the rest can be written somewhere else.
>
> thanks,
> Rob
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>