Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs

Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Wed, 26 February 2020 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@ietf.org>
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 0E40E3A088E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:02:37 -0800 (PST)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 skBdtlDYI0Jt; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:02:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DD8B3A088D; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:02:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <09234B6B-1CB6-4063-BBD0-9CE30701CD45@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C34A1557-1C84-465D-B53C-10FE7C6280C7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
Subject: Re: Changes to the way we manage RFPs
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:02:32 +1300
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVDCPPMi_3Y-PDK4pALhCDeWkx5RiR+jOuS2Oj_KkuSz3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <52c88899-8f4e-c92e-d147-e5437c903467@gmail.com> <8AB21B37-3B6F-4BCF-BF35-FB57639FDF8C@ietf.org> <13032.1582721936@localhost> <CAC4RtVDCPPMi_3Y-PDK4pALhCDeWkx5RiR+jOuS2Oj_KkuSz3Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aBRpbD7bUSDIPFLLJz7jYbDAvA0>
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: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 22:02:37 -0000

Thanks Barry

> On 27/02/2020, at 10:58 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:59 AM Michael Richardson
> <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> The ietf-lastcall split has been good for ietf-announce volume, but
> 
> But here's the thing: That split should have not affected the volume
> on ietf-announce *at all*.  It should have reduced volume on
> <ietf@ietf.org>rg>, which is a very different thing.  This isn't the
> message thread to discuss that further, but I mention it here to lead
> into agreement with some other comments:
> 
> I believe that having a new "rfp-announce" list is a fine thing *if*
> RFC announcements are posted to *both* ietf-announce and rfc-announce.
> That should satisfy all the concerns here: those who subscribe to
> ietf-announce need to change nothing and will still get RFP
> announcements, and those who only want RFC announcements and not the
> other stuff can subscribe only to rfp-announce -- it's an individual
> choice.

In order to close this thread I will cc: ietf@ietf on all posts to rfp-announce, which is trivial to do.

Jay

> 
> Barry
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org
+64 21 678840