--On Sunday, April 20, 2025 16:15 -0700 Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 4:06 PM John C Klensin > <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> --On Sunday, April 20, 2025 15:26 -0700 Rob Sayre >> <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 3:21 PM Stephen Farrell >> > <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On 20/04/2025 23:01, Rob Sayre wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > These messages are unsolicited bulk email. >> >> >> >> Opinions differ. I like 'em. There's been no new information >> >> to cause a change. >> >> >> > >> > OK, >> > >> > I'll do a draft that requires consensus for these things. These >> > can be message summaries, or GitHub activity summaries, etc. >> > >> > It shouldn't be a unilateral (also closed-source?) thing. >> >> Rob, >> >> While I have personally found these messages and statistics much >> less useful since the decisions were made to split off Last-Call, >> Admin-discuss, and several other lists from the ietf@ietf one, >> there actually was a discussion about whether to retain (IIR, >> actually reinstate) this one, whether to have similar reports on >> other lists, and, IIR, some reasonable consensus to keep this one >> going but not propagate the model. So, while it would be >> reasonable to try to get a discussion started if you and others >> want to do that, I do not believe the claim of "unilateral" action >> is accurate. >> > > It's unilateral. Here's what a request to not send these things > looks like: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/agsb5SpPCXn2XwSVa > FHSMQ4pIRE/ But that is part of the history to which I was referring -- a decision to continue generating the summary for the ietf list and send it out to that list, but to not generate it or send it out to any other list, including, in that case, the gendispatch one. I suppose it is time for Stephen and I to step back and let either John Levine or Roman respond; I will now do so. best, john
