----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: "t.p." <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com>; "Pete Resnick"
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>; "Robert Sparks"
<rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com>
Cc: "ietf" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:11 PM
Tom,
On 10/02/2015 23:16, t.p. wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Resnick" <presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
To: "Robert Sparks" <rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 10:49 PM
On 2/9/15 2:11 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
I _think_ the conversation you need to be having to address your
objection is with the IESG on the decision to add the group to the
default notification list.
That's fair. Speaking as one of the folks involved in the change:
The IESG, in part at the behest of the community, wanted to (by
default)
make sure that IESG ballots were copied to the WG mailing list
instead
of being a private conversation between the authors, the chairs,
and
the
IESG, invisible to anyone else in the community. Seeing the ballots
can
always be turned off on a case-by-case basis, but it seemed better
to
have that as default instead of having to remember to turn it on on
a
case-by-case basis.
I think that the workings of the IETF are much improved by being
better
informed as to what the IESG is doing and when.
At a macro level, yes. But the tracker (quite correctly) logs all
kinds
of trivial state changes that really are noise to most people most of
the
time. Those shouldn't be broadcast.
Brian
I think that this needs taking down to specifics. In the good old days,
we would have a period of months or years of silence, during which
something may or may not be happening (like waiting on a Normative
Reference). Now I see progress reports which as neither an editor nor
chair nor shepherd nor AD nor anything except a subscriber to a WG list
I would never see. (I suspect that as the editor of many I-Ds you will
be being kept up-to-date via different channels).
The only post I would regard as redundant is the one about a new
version, which sometimes comes twice, but then not always. Some WG
chairs/ADs are very tight about what they allow those on the list to be
allowed to know (without, that is, the hassle of going onto the ever
harder to use IETF website and poking around).
Tom Petch
I note too that what I
see varies by WG so someone, WG Chair or AD, is doing something
selective in this area. I prefer to be told - I can always delete
the
e-mail which, given the structure of the IETF WGs, is something I
have
to do a lot of anyway.
Sure - if the messages are sent (not BCC) to the WG list that is
relatively painless. Robert assures us that will be the case, which
will definitely help. But the trivia should be narrowcast.
I am rarely interested in everything a WG
takes up, sometimes only a third of the adopted I-Ds (apps-discuss
and
v6ops come to mind as having a particularly broad palette). One or
two
more deletions is neither here nor there (and sometimes it also
serves
as a 'keepalive' on a quiet WG list - saves me checking the
archives to
see if I have been unwittingly unsubscribed :-).
The problem isn't on the quiet lists...
I would quite like to be able to "subscribe" to receive updates on a
specific
draft rather than on every draft in the WG. But maybe that is a
feature request
too far.
Brian