Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate

Ofer Inbar <> Fri, 13 February 2009 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D05873A6A50 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:52:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eN6xQAYn-r7m for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:52:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4C63A6D8F for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:52:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 81FBB10760; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:52:11 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:52:11 -0500
From: Ofer Inbar <>
To: Michael Dillon <>
Subject: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/
Organization: American Association Against Acronym Abuse
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:52:07 -0000

Michael Dillon <> wrote:
> With the text above, don't be surprised when people learn that they can
> become bona fide IETF members by subscribing to the IETF discussion list and
> the new subscription volume swells exponentially. Given the contents of many
> of the letters received on the patent issue, I would expect the majority of
> those people to be willing, and capable of, subscribing to the IETF list in
> order to submit a comment.
> Also, don't be surprised when the next time this issue arises, the FSF
> encourages people to join the IETF WG discussing the next patent-encumbered
> draft.

Those would be positive steps.  I don't think we object to hearing
what people have to say about any topic simply because they happen to
be FSF members.  What we object to is a bunch of "me too" comments
that present no new points, and are clearly coming from people who a)
aren't also receiving them, and b) aren't participating in discussion.

I do like that the IETF list allows non-subscribers to post, even
though it makes these annoyances possible.

However, if we do something that causes the FSF to encourage people to
subscribe if they wish to comment, rather than encouraging people to do
the sort of drive-by we've seen, we'd be happier and they'd be happier.
Those people who don't feel like putting much time into it wouldn't
subscribe; those people who do feel like putting some of their time
into it would be more engaged; the number of substantively identical
messages would be much more self-limiting if a significant proportion
of the would-be activists were subscribed.
  -- Cos