Rather than providing these types of summaries it would make more sense
to provide a conclusion of the individual discussions. This, btw, often
does not happen in working groups either. As a consequent nobody knows
(after a long discussion) whether there was a conclusion or what the
conclusion could have been. Summarizing some of the discussions on the
IETF mailing list would even be more challenging ..... I better go not
into the details on why that is.
Ciao
Hannes
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Andrew G. Malis
<agmalis(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Thomas,
I would personally find this more useful if it were measured by
subject line rather than by sender.
Thread metrics can be found all around the web if you're
interested. GMANE and MARC are just two such services.
I took from Tom's idea and wrote a list metrics system for the PHP
community earlier this year (running on the highest-traffic PHP list,
php-general), which includes total traffic, total posters, messages
and bytes by poster, and also total lines of code and code per poster.
The theory behind that is to see how much useful data is passed per
message (like SNR, basically), but it's become more of a competition
there than anything.
It's interesting to see who's contributed what during what period,
and to develop patterns based on high-traffic weeks compared to
advancement of the language. Measuring by subject would be difficult,
as subject lines change frequently (e.g. - "WAS: Old Subject") and
subjects also sometimes include RE:, FWD:, et cetera. GMANE, MARC, et
al, I believe organize by ThreadID.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf