I don't think it's especially important what the three of us think, so I will not immediately dive into the relative merits of the systems. My concern is twofold:
- What are the practical impacts if a substantial number of subscribers (note, I did not say "most") disagree?
- What are the actual benefits and drawbacks of each system? This should be thoroughly explored, not just assumed or privately considered, before a big change is made.
On #1, my point is that if a substantial number of subscribers prefer the old method, we will end up with a pretty messy situation -- the newsletter subscription process for longstanding newsletters will become much more complicated, not much simpler, which I believe undermines the original intent. Resident Mario, you say that "most users loathe the sprawl" and "I think that most active readers to switch to using" notifications. I don't know what leads you to those conclusions, but let's take them at face value and assume they're true.
Let's say 60% of users who have a strong preference (because we should probably disregard those who don't care too much one way or the other) switch to the news system more or less immediately. Let's say of the remaining 40%, half of them along with it when after a period of time, we push for them to move over. It's been messy during that period of time, but if we're actually "getting somewhere" that might be a price we're all willing to pay. But what about the remaining 20% of the total? Suppose they actually like the old system better, and suppose their reasons are compelling, and persuasive to other Wikimedians (which is different from saying "valid", that's point #2.) What happens next?
On #2, I'll put together a table of what I consider pros and cons of each. You guys can add, remove, we can discuss. It seems rather late in the process to be doing all that, but better late than never. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)