FWIW, as someone else who has been trying to stay tuned out of
this without completely succeeding, +1.
And BTW, there are reasons for preferring "real" addresses for
those posting to a list in addition to whatever value they may
have for private replies. One is that, when a thread gets long,
some of us find it efficient to read messages from people who
usually have something worthwhile to say at higher priority than
those who often contribute noise.
john
--On Wednesday, November 02, 2016 11:18 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> wrote:
On 2 Nov 2016, at 10:49, Ted Lemon wrote:
I think that really what is going on here is that a very
small number of people who talk a lot have prevented forward
progress fixing an issue that significantly affects many IETF
participants who aren't subscribed to ietf@ because of the
noise factor and hence haven't seen the discussion.
That is the opposite impression that I have gotten. It feels
to me that what has happened is that the same discussion
happens in multiple places with groups that have only some
overlap, a person in one group is sure they know the one true
solution, and that no one else has thought of it before, so
they think that people who say "look at this earlier
discussion" are really saying "we don't want to hear from you".
Before I tuned out of this particular discussion (and I'm not
sure why I'm tuning in again now...), I was pleasantly
surprised by the amount of "A: we should do X" -> "B: but that
would have the side-effect of Y" -> "A: arrgh, you're right.
How about Z?" -> "C: that would have this side effect" that
went on. It was a wide-ranging, open discussion of tradeoffs.
After the third iteration, however, the participants maybe got
a bit tired or restating them.
--Paul Hoffman