Ray Pelletier wrote:
Alan, et al.
Message received.
I agree.
Changes being made.
Experiment provided valuable information.
Sorry for the pain.
1. Having IETF administration try new things is considerably better than having
IETF administration NOT try new things.
2. It wouldn't be experimenting if it were guaranteed to succeed.
3. At this stage, anything that gets done is really (at least) two experiments,
not one. One is whatever is intended to be the experiment. The other is
whether the process of making changes gets done better, over time...
4. Having a per-meeting special list has an obvious and reasonable basis.
However it makes each meeting's list a special case for IETF administration and
for attendees. Possible variations to consider:
a. Have the list name be permanent (such as "ietf-attendees") so that
recipients can have a filing filter that they create one time.
b. Per Eric's suggestion, at registration time ask whether the registrant
wants to be added to the list. Subscriptions are not removed after an ietf
meeting. If someone wants to be removed, they use the usual unsubscription
techniques (which, of course, also encourages having the standardized
list-unsubscribe header.)
c. Or, list membership is automatic with registration -- given the specific
nature of this list, making membership be involuntary isn't necessarily
unreasonable. If the registrant's email address is already subscribed, of course
they don't get a second subscription. (List software is usually pretty good at
reporting already-subscribed membership.)
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf