Hi John,
At 03:09 PM 24-01-2025, John C Klensin wrote:
However, if we look at rfc-interest through the same lens (as I have
obviously been doing), most of the traffic there in a given month is
about RFC design and production details (as has been a large part of
the intent for decades), with very little about policy. So I think
it would be reasonable to substantially repeat your assertion about
hostility to RFC consumers above with "rfc-interest" substituted for
"RSWG". I hope the answer is not that we need an "rfc-policy" list,
but maybe that is where the combination of your reasoning about the
RSWG list and mine about the rfc-interest one takes us.
I labelled my reply as off-topic.
1. The on-topic discussion was about a mailing list which is not this
mailing list. Nobody bothered to ask the people on the mailing
list which might be affected by the proposed change whether they
are agreeable to the change. Is that okay?
2. The other mailing list has over six times more subscribers than this
mailing list. It's how things are. I can either respect the wishes
of those people or tell them to move.
3. The last discussion on the other mailing list was about RFCs and
standards. The discussion occurred, in parallel, on an IETF mailing
list and that mailing list. I didn't see any public complaints
about that. I guess that it is because someone thought that it
might be a good place to go and ask for feedback and most of the
residents were okay with that.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
