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

Bob Hinden <> Fri, 13 September 2019 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25468120073 for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s_VWC6xJHDqT for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9DB712004A for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n10so3372370wmj.0 for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=vrjKBXr5AuP1ZmHSsXlz4b5UTvbSRsDUj7u+zcJarrw=; b=X8ePhp41Z2BfXuSY+RNne3uJUnZAWW0RlIlvHcfudyH/RKnvjTaHZNvbCE1eHLkfzc iakMGaRKInjpd4+iHOVeFNjfZDHgm69ltKRK6R2VKFAPhpnMT+ksvv9O2sGNsfQQVKOs UE69K4pQQgTJLfCPHW4G71hBoHDkW7SIi5jpA9+QM3Td8Zce1SPcWIc/eyO0m66pmp/Q OowCGBywMKNHWkrlOdNwwVYH6eHKy06ptOM2BMy638BF7edAOfapLEcGlDrGzP8HqceH 9G1Tp4I5n514/40qmM1EG/Hgnm2gPEau/FnURy//jKRSmV3kwdogMlrP8SiaARf1QgLW ZP1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=vrjKBXr5AuP1ZmHSsXlz4b5UTvbSRsDUj7u+zcJarrw=; b=Kb1X+nu206Kaxq+9RJSyhsspYgCIqZV4SFmM0Q/UaRJ/RBCUhg/1B6uAp1Lz/NOuyE 5KQUHJgQZWcMHkJ2KRyX5wZkcUU2MavIY9omv9xNJRTrPpRZX/YTqVjb+AuATlkgAuow BbHGFqNt8YZBKiv8lz/xj5puZbyQltlpW/Pp0UDsoc8x/sSXnhosEtPbJm45TttJA84o tIZa8KPXqozTANzM+QYrwwDEFuDboVUNEal9ekrtJuMJsgaCRQ7ZDTkYiI8zkFprVp4y 7SMsiI83z0STM1vdqyqLdaOnASzJYqLGpTcm1t/Vwk//4FH9a2uH41vgE6h3zh8Tc3ho IHng==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUgATSwm2qIxXqVdw2I/2GXxvgMQJRAMsuAv9bhGD+JK3kzcxY3 GYseC5BvK27G7e68wG1hesw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyqZUgbZN7/Ru4ZwLpsDxmGLhEQtzFVK77V6Q/bAULHZr3abCQW/n4YjVuaf/H9ISMKf3m+Rg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9dc1:: with SMTP id g184mr3940783wme.77.1568390805372; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:41ed:61a6:6960:df4b? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:41ed:61a6:6960:df4b]) by with ESMTPSA id n30sm2684421wmd.15.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A72C92CB-E503-473B-8D81-B45A29C4179B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:06:40 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, IETF <>
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <> <EDBBBD9628A18755F4366D0B@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
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 16:06:49 -0000

Hi Barry,

I have read thought the discussion and have a few questions.

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

   Our plan is to create the new list and pre-subscribe everyone who is
   subscribed to <> at that time.  Of course, anyone could
   unsubscribe to either or both lists immediately or later, but we think
   that doing it this way would minimize the likelihood that people would
   miss important stuff because of the move, and folks can choose what
   they prefer from there.

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?   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.

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?

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.

How are we to evaluate the experiment?   I have have no doubt that it will achieve the goal of keeping the discussions separate.  I think we should be defining other criteria in which to evaluate the results of the experiment.

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.