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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 16 September 2019 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 7B2EE120026 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Qzx6fXbCBFO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923BA12004F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1i9txS-000LkE-NL; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:34:34 -0400
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:34:28 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
Message-ID: <5532546FE953FD2F49A4BD48@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJL8zcbdue0+HpRQ0jE0HKNxuAkK6B+HZvsjyjc4vskOVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F81AE7E530D4651A0806B087@PSB> <CALaySJL8zcbdue0+HpRQ0jE0HKNxuAkK6B+HZvsjyjc4vskOVg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ut2-eYUEe36TgsoOTbq_GTL-YPs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 16 Sep 2019 16:34:40 -0000

--On Monday, September 16, 2019 07:15 -0700 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba@computer.org>; wrote:

> Hi, John,
> 
>> But, again, my concern is that we get the best cross-area
>> reviews possible and reach IETF consensus on that basis, not
>> that WG participation and consensus within the WG is
>> unimportant.
> 
> Indeed, John, and I understand and agree with that.
> 
> 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.
> 
> As these are both valid views and we don't know which is
> correct, it seems to me that the only way to find out what
> will *actually* happen will be to run the experiment.  Do you
> know another way?

Barry,

No, I don't see another way and that is one of several reasons
why, although I [still] question the timing (no need to recycle
that discussion) I have been in favor of doing this, as an
experiment, from the beginning.  I am raising these issues now
in the hope that it will increase our sensitivity to the risks
and tradeoffs involved as we evaluate the experiment and what
information it might be useful to obtain to understand our
baseline before we start (the conversation between you and Brian
has, IMO, been very helpful that regards).

   best,
   john