Re: Weekly posting summary for [e-mail]

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 6/7/13 6:03 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> So why not move the signal?
>>> Put IETF Last Call mail [e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>and leave this list for everything else.
>>
>> The discussion still has to happen somewhere.   I certainly am not 
>> restricting my meaningful participation in last calls, but even in 
>> that case it is important to be restrained and not get into long 
>> fruitless discussions, which, I am afraid, I am wont to do.
>
> It's a significant problem for those who *have* to read the threads, 
> in particular document authors, WG chairs, and ADs. Hats off to them 
> for keeping up with it where they need to.
>
> As another example, the v6ops list has recently also had four threads 
> run well over the 100 message count, specifically end to end response 
> time, ULA usage, "being careful" about ULAs and the semantic prefix 
> thread.
v6ops had a single draft which attracted ~1100 messages over the course 
of a year so this isn't new or unusual over there. A small number of 
posters tend to be the majority of the volume on several topics, so if 
you're reading to understand the positions of the working group or to 
measure consensus on the list some judicious sorting is required.
> Of course, a healthy debate is a good thing, as is having an open 
> process for discussion. If we had very few comments that would 
> certainly not be good either. But I fear that some valuable 
> contributions are either being drowned out, or that some people with 
> valuable input are being put off contributing.

> Tim