Useful summary for ietf@ietf.org

Rather than providing these types of summaries it would make more sense 
to provide a conclusion of the individual discussions. This, btw, often 
does not happen in working groups either. As a consequent nobody knows 
(after a long discussion) whether there was a conclusion or what the 
conclusion could have been. Summarizing some of the discussions on the 
IETF mailing list would even be more challenging ..... I better go not 
into the details on why that is.

Ciao
Hannes

Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Thomas,
>>
>>  I would personally find this more useful if it were measured by
>>  subject line rather than by sender.
>>     
>
>     Thread metrics can be found all around the web if you're
> interested.  GMANE and MARC are just two such services.
>
>     I took from Tom's idea and wrote a list metrics system for the PHP
> community earlier this year (running on the highest-traffic PHP list,
> php-general), which includes total traffic, total posters, messages
> and bytes by poster, and also total lines of code and code per poster.
>  The theory behind that is to see how much useful data is passed per
> message (like SNR, basically), but it's become more of a competition
> there than anything.
>
>     It's interesting to see who's contributed what during what period,
> and to develop patterns based on high-traffic weeks compared to
> advancement of the language.  Measuring by subject would be difficult,
> as subject lines change frequently (e.g. - "WAS: Old Subject") and
> subjects also sometimes include RE:, FWD:, et cetera.  GMANE, MARC, et
> al, I believe organize by ThreadID.
>
>   

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf