Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions

Barry Leiba <> Fri, 13 September 2019 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5764120116 for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.026, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pGEBtH0hK_il for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 843AB1200FF for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r8so40394852iol.10 for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VjhYOiM+AZbdYV8LYWHYgmDU1kC6GrbxIC3lddGsirM=; b=dVYc0WN5AJrU3ssFfAZMR1BobvsAGTW5f5tBgFrMGaV9brX5QqsmLKx/KVyifWU7Nd N6EXp/wdGVOlbRKh//79Dqgpb9g6qP1UWaXRW4zn3+I7LP0AfwXPdm9waXYZ5S/2wHSZ bpBJZhoZiZj9z3/ykrT69TcXBqoilgZtJiccGd3wo7P/fmAgxqqlnu9bUOgYuWd+jsUf 1yEsxBwgkYWr04ebIuqRYHSbybSQoihCLnQ+Un8119Gt1pr/dfGy7j/SDcxOmKMCvnyY 7GRfEBPtFVdBs/Pb0w46VsawDkl86kU5MSl5guiMUxECkg4NRE0Vdz4iddo/UB9epjx6 ZG5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUxMt13dPM8rr0fDEG45v3SYPPrF1/utx+0BbTkwkYysCpAdHiv cHElrXk4mv6NIWibAK935MPXYFkPv/dZfxeD+wgV5g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyGKG7m5X8a1RlolfJKczY7eDlnIqIYEUH0pO2wxlFx4/FLv2KWM4rm+HOiar3mrixpLtgtbTvLWcKfcd+MddE=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:c107:: with SMTP id v7mr1981093iol.200.1568406160470; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <EDBBBD9628A18755F4366D0B@PSB> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:22:28 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: Bob Hinden <>
Cc: IETF <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 20:22:43 -0000

Hi, Bob.

> As I understand the proposal, the intent is to have the two lists initially have the same membership.

Right: initially, so that people don't miss anything in the transition.

> After the initial list creation, will new people be required to subscribe to each list separately,
> or will subscribing to the list also cause a subscription to the last-call@ietf list?

They will be separate lists.

> I think this is an important issue as the value of each list is that there is a broad representation
> of people from the IETF community.

That's not meant to change.  The IETF discussion list does not
currently have everyone subscribed.  People will choose what to
subscribe to, and that shouldn't change.  I expect both lists to have
broad representation... but not universal representation, and not the
same representation.

> Is it a desirable outcome if the lists become very different in membership?   If the list
> becomes a lot smaller, is this a good outcome of the experiment, or a bad outcome?

It is an expected outcome that the list memberships will be different.
If either list's membership becomes "a lot smaller", that, in itself,
is neither a good nor a bad outcome.  I would say that a bad outcome
would be significantly less last-call discussion.  A bad outcome would
also be bad community experience with the result, based on
discussion/survey after we've tried it for a while.

> Also, a related question, how do new IETF participants know to subscribe to the IETF list these
> days?   Do we have any way of knowing if current active IETF participants are subscribed?
> Perhaps, when registering for a meeting, the registration tool could offer to subscribe to the
> and lists.

This is a really good point, and, I think, a good suggestion for a
solution.  The IESG will discuss that as we plan registration for IETF