Re: Please welcome the facilitators at [e-mail]

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, November 09, 2016 21:55 -0800 S Moonesamy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi John,
> At 16:10 09-11-2016, John C Klensin wrote:
>> That said, let me make an alternate suggestion.
> 
> I was contacted two or three times over the last seven months
> about an issue.  Within the context of the experiment there
> hasn't been any noteworthy discussion over the last few months.

That is consistent with the point I was trying to make.  Part of
what I understood you to say was that the role, as currently
defined, was taking up too much time as compared to value and
your and Melinda to suggest that there weren't a lot of cases in
which it was likely to be particularly effective.  I think there
is still potential value in the general concept and in
mechanisms that were lighter-weight and more about focusing
discussions, reducing repetition, and educating participants
than the Sergeant at Arms procedures.   If so, or we want to
carry out _that_ experiment, the right next step is to reduce
the workload to be more proportionate to both need and acutal
value.

That said, the one thing I wish you had done but didn't (and may
not have had the mandate to do) was to post those summaries with
enough confidence, and presumption of community backing, to be
able to say "these subthreads have been noted, continuing to
post on them without adding anything new will be considered
disruptive and turned over to the Sergeant at Arms".  

regards,
    john