Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Mon, 03 December 2012 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
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 D844021F8583 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:37:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e8iwDbxQtOp2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:37:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CAFF021F86A3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:37:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Dec 2012 19:37:29 -0000
Received: from a88-115-216-191.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.100.109]) [88.115.216.191] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 03 Dec 2012 20:37:29 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19Whl5ubKRWxtKO70H4l9+vFqQ90GuE9vNk9CuKL/ Yg0RlROBXr9rLO
Subject: Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121203093517.0a1bdc38@resistor.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 21:37:27 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4CA77187-1B4C-4F62-9F62-00CD213690D8@gmx.net>
References: <84D0B79A-6D53-47DD-99B8-BC6C18614C74@gmx.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20121203093517.0a1bdc38@resistor.net>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:37:32 -0000

On Dec 3, 2012, at 8:01 PM, SM wrote:

> There are people contributing to a working group who are not subscribed to the mailing list.  There are probably people who are not actively following a working group who might attend a conference call.

Any data that supports your argument? Are there people subscribed to the IETF announce list who just wait for conference calls they can join. 
With the same argument we should just forward every "interesting" mail from the working group just in case that someone on the IETF announcement list cares about it. 

If you do not follow the mailing list how likely is it that you will understand the discussions during the conference call? 

Ciao
Hannes