On 6/7/13 6:03 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com
<mailto:Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman <andy(_at_)yumaworks(_dot_)com
<mailto:andy(_at_)yumaworks(_dot_)com>> wrote:
So why not move the signal?
Put IETF Last Call mail onlast-call(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:last-call(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>and leave this list for everything else.
The discussion still has to happen somewhere. I certainly am not
restricting my meaningful participation in last calls, but even in
that case it is important to be restrained and not get into long
fruitless discussions, which, I am afraid, I am wont to do.
It's a significant problem for those who *have* to read the threads,
in particular document authors, WG chairs, and ADs. Hats off to them
for keeping up with it where they need to.
As another example, the v6ops list has recently also had four threads
run well over the 100 message count, specifically end to end response
time, ULA usage, "being careful" about ULAs and the semantic prefix
thread.
v6ops had a single draft which attracted ~1100 messages over the course
of a year so this isn't new or unusual over there. A small number of
posters tend to be the majority of the volume on several topics, so if
you're reading to understand the positions of the working group or to
measure consensus on the list some judicious sorting is required.
Of course, a healthy debate is a good thing, as is having an open
process for discussion. If we had very few comments that would
certainly not be good either. But I fear that some valuable
contributions are either being drowned out, or that some people with
valuable input are being put off contributing.
Tim