Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 26 February 2020 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302E23A09FD; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:53:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 rR_bXgkWPmrt; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:53:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECF8E3A09D5; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:53:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E19A38982; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:52:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E43A0; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:53:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
cc: jay@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVDCPPMi_3Y-PDK4pALhCDeWkx5RiR+jOuS2Oj_KkuSz3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52c88899-8f4e-c92e-d147-e5437c903467@gmail.com> <8AB21B37-3B6F-4BCF-BF35-FB57639FDF8C@ietf.org> <13032.1582721936@localhost> <CAC4RtVDCPPMi_3Y-PDK4pALhCDeWkx5RiR+jOuS2Oj_KkuSz3Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:53:25 -0500
Message-ID: <14147.1582757605@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4bEe6wWXlvqzfecD5f3MLmmrtIo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:53:35 -0000

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
    >> The ietf-lastcall split has been good for ietf-announce volume, but

    > But here's the thing: That split should have not affected the volume on
    > ietf-announce *at all*.  It should have reduced volume on
    > <ietf@ietf.org>rg>, which is a very different thing.  This isn't the

Yes, sorry, I mis-typed that.
The split has helped me manage the threads and volume better.

    > I believe that having a new "rfp-announce" list is a fine thing *if*
    > RFC announcements are posted to *both* ietf-announce and rfc-announce.
    > That should satisfy all the concerns here: those who subscribe to
    > ietf-announce need to change nothing and will still get RFP
    > announcements, and those who only want RFC announcements and not the
    > other stuff can subscribe only to rfp-announce -- it's an individual
    > choice.

I can live with this.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [