Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls

SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 03 December 2012 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.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 45BCC21F8940 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:39:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.638
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.039, 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 UleaGU0Munsx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:39:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71CD921F8443 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:39:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qB3Id3gR022895; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:39:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1354559948; bh=yC4xpaePxFgy0B8QB/FEMJNt+i81MIJjJAiWymRpwgs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=HfL5yUDpY3Vd/QCBvV86OBEsQHUrjphVJ7FUWCZ/kIvJW1iAUeolrGeKdtsBEu82H ThjE3qzDHGnKDQlFwIXnEgPW2pR1lbE4BI/7x29M/Uhdfd0zcguBiYYi3IdJ4Enkyi BB34lEj7gTJm/5nbny/eTGV6tdRFJNU6RMBsNjH4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1354559948; i=@resistor.net; bh=yC4xpaePxFgy0B8QB/FEMJNt+i81MIJjJAiWymRpwgs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=uccvLuk/XC3b5WS4pH+1b2/wX+/4luarKFNEQObM8FloBwFKL+P6sFiHLp8112ekN UvomTlc7m/eExwcvod8oiQKjvrR2h6C9Dpp8r2yBqN2/098+xzHboMVdwlZlYL5KSW BcPMcRuzlnuXe9hdG4C6rKQOX9c4xKLnR3UjOgIg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121203093517.0a1bdc38@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:01:33 -0800
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
In-Reply-To: <84D0B79A-6D53-47DD-99B8-BC6C18614C74@gmx.net>
References: <84D0B79A-6D53-47DD-99B8-BC6C18614C74@gmx.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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 18:39:12 -0000

Hi Hannes,
At 07:41 03-12-2012, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>Why do we need to announce conference calls (or Jabber chats) on the 
>IETF announce mailing list? How likely is it that someone cares 
>about a working group effort, does not subscribe to the WG mailing 
>list, has not seen a poll about the date and time, and wants to 
>participate in the conference call? To me - this seems rather unlikely.

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.

>Could we please change that?

Sending an email through ietf-announce@ is not that much work [1] 
[2].  If you broadcast the announcement to the entire community it's 
public.  You don't have to worry about the questions you asked above 
or conspiracy theories.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/scim/current/msg00782.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg72510.html