Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announcement list

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Al,

I would go further, and consolidate all interim announcements into one 
per week on announce, and remind people to subscribe to the IETF 
calendar (WGs could still see the non-consolidated). Similarly 
consolidate document actions to one per week.  Similarly with RFCs.  
That reduces the #s considerably.

Eliot

On 29.09.21 14:57, MORTON JR., AL wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> following-up on "reduce the data to usable information":
>
> It occurred to me that when I see several separate (#10) Interim Meeting announcement e-mails for the *same* WG, that a consolidated announcement for all the meetings would suffice. (One press of the delete key for those who are uninterested.)
>
> Then, any announcement that is purely an announcement (no e-mail discussion thread follows) could be combined with others (#4,6,7,8) when they are prepared/ready close in time.
>
> We retain the same info on ietf-announce with fewer messages.
>
> Al
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: WGChairs <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 8:12 AM
>> To: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Working Chairs <[e-mail]>; Christian Huitema
>> <[e-mail]>; IETF <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: Proposal: an "important-news" IETF announcement list
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>> 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
>