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

[t.p. <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>
To: "Robert Sparks" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 10:49 PM
> 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.

I think that the workings of the IETF are much improved by being better
informed as to what the IESG is doing and when.  I note too that what I
see varies by WG so someone, WG Chair or AD, is doing something
selective in this area.

I prefer to be told - I can always delete the
e-mail which, given the structure of the IETF WGs, is something I have
to do a lot of anyway.  I am rarely interested in everything a WG
takes up, sometimes only a third of the adopted I-Ds (apps-discuss and
v6ops come to mind as having a particularly broad palette).  One or two
more deletions is neither here nor there (and sometimes it also serves
as a 'keepalive' on a quiet WG list -  saves me checking the archives to
see if I have been unwittingly unsubscribed :-).

So, strong support for the better informed WG, even when it means that I
have more e-mails to delete,

Tom Petch

> 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]
>
>