Unsurprisingly, I like it. Based on the criteria you give, I'd say 4; it's not perfect (others have already suggested interesting improvements), but it's substantially better than what was before, and we shouldn't go back. Cheers, > On 1 May 2020, at 1:15 am, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > (I'm replying to this and adding the last-call list, which I forgot to > do when I sent it. Please reply to *this* message, to keep both lists > included.) > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
