3. One more mailing list subscribed to is a detail. I think a useful evaluation approach would be to see how the subscriber base for the two lists has diverged. If they are ~the same, then I think there's little value to the community in a separate list. If they have diverged significantly (FSVO significant), then that's probably a strong sign that the separate list is worthwhile. If there is a difference between the subscriber base for the two lists, I would also consider if new ietf@ subscribers in the period are appropriately represented in the last call list (if they aren't, that may be a problem). One risk of a segregated list is it makes participating in the community wide last call discussions somewhat less discoverable for newcomers. I believe such an assessment would be more in the IETF tradition than a poll on ietf@ (which also leaves out the people who unsubscribed from ietf@ because they were only here for the last calls and they like the change). Scott K On Thursday, April 30, 2020 11:00:40 AM EDT Barry Leiba wrote: > It's been around six months since we started the <last-call@xxxxxxxx> > list, and we said that we would evaluate the results after six months. > To that end, the IESG would like to see comments about how it's been > working. > > Please respond to this thread to comment. It would be helpful if the > first line of your comment gave a succinct view of your opinion on the > following 5-to-1 scale: > > 5: Perfect! Don't even think about going back! > 4: I really like it and want to keep it. > 3: Neutral: I don't care either way. > 2: I don't like it, but I can live with it if we decide to keep it. > 1: It's terrible! Please, please go back to the old way! > > And, of course, if you have further comments beyond those numbers, > include those as well. We want to know what you think. Comments, > please, in the next couple of weeks, by 15 May. Thanks! > > Barry, for the IESG
