Hi, Ole,
I'm still having coherency problems after IETF 77 - sorry.
What I was wondering wasn't why there is an attendees list (I remember the
"where is the nearest Apple store" discussions that resulted in current
practice).
What I'm wondering is why we continue to set up 76attendees, 77attendees,
78attendees, and not something like ietf-attendees. Whatever current
practice is on opt-in, and on pretty much everything else about the way the
NNattendees lists are handled, seems to be fine.
I'm remembering that we were already getting information about Hiroshima
(IETF 76) posted prior to IETF 75 (including very helpful material from
you), and we had some discussions about the IETF 78 site that started soon
after IETF 76. If we have 70-percent turnover in who's subscribed to each
ietf meeting-specific list, having ietf meeting-specific lists makes sense,
but if it's 70-percent the same people each time, why not have one list that
we use for all site-specific topics, so if someone were to have something
helpful to say about IETF 79 in Beijing now, there would be an obvious place
to put it, and an equally obvious place to look for it in a few months when
people are making travel arrangements?
Just a thought...
Spencer
Spencer,
This practice was started because the main IETF list got flooded with
messages like "where is the nearest Apple store?" once we were onsite
and this annoyed the folks who weren't actually at the meeting. Having
it (opt-in) on a per-meeting basis makes sense to me, if we create the
list in advance of the meeting (pre-registration), I guess we'd have
to figure out some subscription mechanims (like "you will be
auto-subscribed once you post your first message to ietf-xx" or
something like that.) I can see a lot of value in having a list
created well in advance to answer questions such as visa and
transportation.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what problem we're solving by setting up IETF
meeting-specific mailing lists each time. It's not like most of the
attendees
at IETF 77 weren't at at least one meeting in the previous year, and if
there
is a population on earth that we should expect to be able to unsubscribe
from
mailing lists when they aren't relevant to us, it's IETF attendees. Maybe
an
ietf-meeting-attendees mailing list, and be done with it?
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf