Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Fri, 07 June 2013 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
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 59B1621F9600 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.288
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.289, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c+d4g967HpX6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E27AF21F92EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from joels-MacBook-Air.local ([196.38.103.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r57GCfZZ056669 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 7 Jun 2013 16:12:45 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <51B20674.80704@bogus.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 18:12:36 +0200
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/21.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "ietf@ietf.org list" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
References: <201306070453.r574r3Wt010088@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> <CADnDZ89FjyPtvJQSqY+kmX+1KYkc0jo1mRpOgkfcEnTH6Vbg6A@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA462@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <201306071449.r57EnN5N008971@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <CABCOCHSkLj0409hyeqKNdomOdrScYypi_7a1xWqMEUV9eTPuCw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA801@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <F8B44DCF-77F8-45A0-9B6B-9D70755A6BAA@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|9e374f039865cf00887326b27c809739p56H3403tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F8B44DCF-77F8-45A0-9B6B-9D70755A6BAA@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|9e374f039865cf00887326b27c809739p56H3403tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|F8B44DCF-77F8-45A0-9B6B-9D70755A6BAA@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:12:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 07 Jun 2013 16:13:39 -0000

On 6/7/13 6:03 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com 
> <mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com 
>> <mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> wrote:
>>> So why not move the signal?
>>> Put IETF Last Call mail onlast-call@ietf.org 
>>> <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>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