Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

On 16 Sep 2019, at 9:15, Barry Leiba wrote:

> I think the issue is that you (and a few others) are concerned that if
> we move last-call discussion to another list, fewer people will follow
> that list, and, therefore, fewer people will be exposed to the
> last-call discussions and possibly be moved to join some of them.
>
> On the other hand, others, including the people who suggested the
> split in the first place, think that actually *more* people will be
> likely to pay attention to the last-call discussion if they're on a
> mailing list that's separate from the high-volume that is the IETF
> Discussion list.

Indeed, it's possible that more people will follow the general 
discussion list than they do now, in addition to following the last-call 
list: Part of the problem people are expressing is the inability to wade 
through the volume. I presume that most people now have different IETF 
lists go to different views or mailboxes in their client, or (like me) 
use the IETF IMAP server and read multiple mailboxes, each in it's own 
view. If I know that I can go to the last-call list when I'm in the mood 
for technical discussions, or go to the general list when I'm in the 
mood for other sorts of discussions, I'm likely to do both on a regular 
basis, and less likely to be discouraged from doing one for fear of 
having to wade through the other.

BTW: With regard to the IMAP server, it might be good to see what stats 
you can get on usage there. You may find people subscribed to lists that 
way and not in mailman. (I happen to remain subscribed in mailman 
because some lists don't use the Global-Whitelist for posting 
privileges.) If you only look at regular subscriptions, you may miss 
some data.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best