Michael Dillon <wavetossed(_at_)googlemail(_dot_)com> 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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf