Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announcement list what's missing

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 29/09/2021 17:30, tom petch wrote:
> On 29/09/2021 13:11, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-9-27, at 18:36, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> In an admirable effort to be transparent, we have inundated this list
>>> in particular with data.  We now need to take the time to reduce that
>>> data  to usable information.  Please take another swing.
>>
>> the IESG certainly could. But I'm also pretty convinced that whatever
>> proposal we came up with would get improved by the community pretty
>> immediately.
>>
>> So maybe we could try the opposite, and see if the community has some
>> consensus on what information they would like to retain on
>> ietf-announce, under the assumption that that would then remain our
>> lists for broad announcements.
>>
>> For reference, here's again the list of posting classes that currently
>> go there, and the count of messages in each class in the last year:
>>
>> 1.  Announcements sent manually by <various roles> = 284
>> 2.  Announcements of new and updated WG charters & WG closures = 44
>> 3.  (included in above 44)
>> 4.  Announcements of new non-WG mailing lists =    13
>> 5.  Announcements of new RFCs =    275
>> 6.  IESG and LLC telechat announcements = 39
>> 7.  Announcements of document actions = 175
>> 8.  Announcements of IESG conflict-review results = 14
>> 9.  Last call announcements for I-Ds = 174 (+ 4 for other actions)
>> 10. Interim WG meeting announcements = 256
>>
>> The "important-news" proposal would only retain those under (1) above.
>> (We could have a conversation if some of those could also be moved
>> elsewhere, but that's maybe a separate discussion.)

I said before that the e-mails of least general interest IMHO are those 
from the Director, which seem to make up almost half of category 1) most 
of which I see as being of little or no immediate concern.  The 
exception I made was for outages of our infrastructure, past, present 
and future, since I see those as bringing work to a grinding halt.

Yet today I see notice of an outage of a key part of our infrastructure 
on October 4th that has not been posted to ietf, ietf-announce or any 
such list AFAICT.

Weird.

Tom Petch

<snip>
> Tom Petch
>
>> For any type of posting we'd remove, we could of course create a new
>> list, so that the information was still shared. I understand that when
>> we move to mailman3, we'll get a much better web-based subscription
>> interface that will make managing subscriptions much more
>> straightforward.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lars
>>