I agree with you John, I also not objecting it but wanted more meaning into
the report when I receive it, as I suggested before for clarifications.
I don't think majority in IETF think it is meaningless so that is why I
want to clarify the meaning and discuss what most may not want to discuss.
If this was already discussed could some one point me to a discussion about
a weekly post that is done for long and which it may be meaningless by
some and understoond the meaning by others. I will add that the report can
be misleading, and that I have no intention to write a code for something
that is not IETF procedure, but I have intention to clarify such message
received each week in IETF that has a lack of information or meaning agreed
on.
AB
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:55 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 19:53 +0000 John Levine
<johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
summary - I strongly object.
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks
it's fine.
I do not want to be recorded as thinking it is fine. If nothing
else, I think was is being reported is meaningless statistically
(which doesn't mean people can't find value in it). However, I
do not object to its being posted as long as it isn't used to
justify personal attacks on individuals for their "ranking".
It seems to me that isn't quite what you said, rough consensus
or not.
best,
john