ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call List was Re: Best tool to cut posts 6.25 inches square x 96 inches

2014-08-12 09:32:43
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:

Ray,

On 12/08/14 11:10, Ray Pelletier wrote:
We just lost another 10% (?) from this list. At Plenary in Toronto
several folks admitted to unsubscribing years ago from this list.
Without judging whether or not the community needs a list for all the
varied discussions that take place here, isn't it time for a Last
Call list?

FWIW, I'm not convinced. Those already go to IETF-announce and
I bet a LC-discuss list would have all the same issues. I also
think there's a bunch of folks who'd object and haven't seen
their objections discussed, but I could be wrong there.

Adding the #subscribers to the Narten numbers might be useful
though so we could see the evolution of list-size.

Can someone please remind me what problem exactly we are trying to solve?

Do we really think that the volume of LC comments are so large that
folk don't participate on -discuss? That there is so much faff on
discuss that folk cannot see the LC discussions?

There is significant value in having a general discussion list -- we
are, in theory, a community -- part of being part of a community
involves knowing the other folk, and building a shared ethos. -discuss
is, IMO, the closest we have to that. Things like PHB's Tardis
discussion didn't hurt anyone, and provided A: some education, B: some
chuckles, and C: an understanding of some other folks interests.

Having a separate list for LC seem to me like it will simply end up as
a bit bucket -- if I missed discussions of a draft in a working group,
and I missed it on IETF-announce, I'm not magically going to see and
care on LC-discuss... and, if I do, my comments are not likely to be
useful / relevant[0]. If anyone does subscribe to a LC-discuss list
(because, y' know, filters on IETF-announce are too hard?), I suspect
it will simply end up trolling -- having someone pop out of the
woodwork and ask "Why did you choose to do X in this way? Y is
better..." without having followed the WG discussion is simply not
useful.
If they actually care / have a valid opinion they should have been
involved in the WG discussion, or seen the IETF-announce thread.

Let's not fall into the trap of judging our value by a: how many
people come to a physical meeting or b: are members of a mailing list
- these are not useful metrics.

W
[0]: Colin Doyle (one of the people in the NOC) made me my current
favorite IETF shirt -- it says "Your comments are neither interesting
nor relevant, but at least they provide no new information".



S.



Ray

On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:57 AM, Nico Williams 
<nico(_at_)cryptonector(_dot_)com>
wrote:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 8/11/14 9:13 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:07 AM, Christian Huitema
<huitema(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote: Are you guys building a
bike-shed?
Yes, but it's a special one that's bigger on the inside...

And ... we're done here.

And to think I've resisted subscribing to _this_ list for so long.
I never knew what I was missing!