Re: Strong objection to draft-ietf-WG-*.all noise levels

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 2/9/15 2:11 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> I _think_ the conversation you need to be having to address your 
> objection is with the IESG on the decision to add the group to the 
> default notification list. 

That's fair. Speaking as one of the folks involved in the change:

The IESG, in part at the behest of the community, wanted to (by default) 
make sure that IESG ballots were copied to the WG mailing list instead 
of being a private conversation between the authors, the chairs, and the 
IESG, invisible to anyone else in the community. Seeing the ballots can 
always be turned off on a case-by-case basis, but it seemed better to 
have that as default instead of having to remember to turn it on on a 
case-by-case basis.

Now, the mechanism used to accomplish that (adding the WG to the .notify 
alias, which in turn adds it to the .all alias) sends *all* 
notifications regarding a document to the WG by default. Perhaps we want 
to change that.

Are there particular notifications that you *don't* want copied to the 
WG? Or maybe more to the point, are there notifications that you *do* 
want copied to the WG?

We'll work with the tools folks to make the right thing happen.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]