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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 01-Oct-21 07:05, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > On 30-Sep-21 04:07, Michael Richardson wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> > I think that 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 should be in a weekly summary, one
>     >> > single message per week.
>     >>
>     >> Mailman has a digest mode.  Would that suffice?
> 
>     > No, because from observation, most people who reply to a digest don't
>     > change the Subject to a useful string. This would be disastrous for
>     > Last Call workflows in particular.
> 
> The categories proposed that would be on a list that would be digestable
> would be (based upon what Barry wrote):
> 
>>>>> 2.  Announcements of new and updated WG charters & WG closures = 44
>>>>> 5.  Announcements of new RFCs = 275
>>>>> 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
> 
> So, we'd need to not include Last Call Announcements in that list.
> Then would it work for you?

Not if it ever leads me to receive a message with a subject like

Re: document-actions Digest, Vol 52, Issue 41

That one would take many times longer before I could hit delete than

Re: Document Action: 'Boring Stuff' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-boring-stuff-10.txt)
 
> A thing that I like about the digest option is that the archives (and IMAP)
> would have the individual messages.

But in my experience people reply directly to the digest.

The bottom line is that people's workflows and email habits vary widely,
so there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

   Brian