Re: Moderation on ietf@ietf.org

Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Fri, 25 July 2014 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <avri@acm.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8C21A0A95 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 20:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.664
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AOutlHGIGctJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 20:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A846A1A0A92 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 20:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.209]) by atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6P3ddFP026975 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:39:39 -0400
Received: (qmail 30877 invoked by uid 0); 25 Jul 2014 03:39:38 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.15.42.104
X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (avri@ella.com@68.15.42.104) by 0 with ESMTPA; 25 Jul 2014 03:39:38 -0000
Message-ID: <53D1D178.4060809@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:39:36 -0400
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Moderation on ietf@ietf.org
References: <8365BC9B-E28F-49B6-B374-1D6DBCA2C2E8@ietf.org> <CADnDZ8_VA6mQsN9i+rX0ivQ3vo-ZnTr-+1V8KZvc2xZzFgT5qw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwggkWxcH2rTpwo7mNsgS8PbfggeDiV41Rr2UQoHAc1PBQ@mail.gmail.com> <19901.1406214888@sandelman.ca> <53D13985.6050702@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53D13985.6050702@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140724-1, 07/24/2014), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0QF0s9rLaohS6ADOv3ejbLyqHy8
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 03:39:44 -0000

Hi,

I tend to agree with Brian on this.

avri


On 24-Jul-14 12:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I'm going to be contrarian.
> 
> I think ietf@ietf.org is *exactly* what we want for IETF last
> calls. Most last calls are silent. Some trigger a small,
> non-annoying amount of technical discussion. The remaining
> ones cause mailstorms. Those are exactly the ones I, as an
> IETF citizen, want to know about. They tell me that the IETF
> is about to do something controversial, and I need to have
> a careful look to see if I care. If I decide that I don't care,
> it's trivial to ignore the thread.
> 
> This essential feature would be lost if the last call traffic
> was hidden in some place dedicated to the particular draft;
> I'd never be aware that there was a controversy.
> 
> To say that another way: a last call message on IETF-announce
> would at most attract the attention of people who already care.
> A last call mailstorm here will attract the attention of
> people who ought to care, and slightly interrupt the viewing
> experience of people who don't care.
> 
> That said, I'm all for attempting to dissuade inappropriate
> messages during such a mailstorm. But the mailstorm itself
> has value.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> 
>