Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Fri, 13 February 2009 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C41653A6AF8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:38:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v-ERJ9cJgChF for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:38:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1FE3A67B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:38:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.25.90.dsl.charm.net [207.114.25.90]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n1DDccqG017243 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:38:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11]) by squonk.gsp.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n1DDceWl024582 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:38:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-4) with ESMTP id n1DDcW6u010725 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:38:33 -0500
Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n1DDcUEn010722 for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:38:30 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:38:30 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate
Message-ID: <20090213133830.GA10598@gsp.org>
References: <20090212233148.D779D6BE551@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <877585b00902130222x4bed5d3chf842e05bc45544d7@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <877585b00902130222x4bed5d3chf842e05bc45544d7@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:41:52 -0800
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 13 Feb 2009 13:38:36 -0000

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:22:39AM +0000, Michael Dillon wrote:
> If you really want to limit it to people subscribed to the list, forget the
> boilerplate, just configure Mailman differently.

Enthusiastic second, as this is a better and cleaner idea, preferable
over the overly-complex alternatives proposed.   (The same could be done
to other lists as well.)  It isn't at all difficult to facilitate this
kind of discussion just by using the features that are already there.

(And if there's a need for a feature which doesn't yet exist?  The
Mailman community has shown itself quite responsive to the needs
and suggestions of users, doubly so when those are accompanied by
working code.)

I find web-based forums idiosyncratic, difficult-to-use, and resistant
to offline reading, archiving and searching.  Mail is still, by a huge
margin, the very best means of conducting these conversations.

---Rsk