Hi, SM, and thanks for your follow-up. I'm splitting your question to a separate thread to avoid distractions in the thread for direct feedback on the experiment. > I asked a question [1] about the planned experiment in September > 2019. Nobody from the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) > commented on it. I'm sorry that I missed your question before, and I'll give you my opinion on it now -- I haven't discussed this with other ADs, so it's just my own thoughts here. > I followed the plenary meeting during which a few persons suggested > that the Last Call messages be moved to another mailing list due to the > volume of emails unrelated to Last Calls. The number of monthly Last > Call emails is usually in the single digits. That's not what I see when I look. As I look right now I see about 60 message threads dated in April, many of them with multiple messages (one has 24, and many have 4 to 6). These do not include announcements, and mostly include directorate and review team reviews but also comments from individuals not reviewing for review teams. In any case, the point is not the number of last call posts, but the separation of last call discussion from the other discussion on the main IETF list, which often swamps the last calls and makes them harder for some to find. > Every now and then the > mailing list is used for announcements, e.g. blog posts, IAB call for > comments, or some proposed change like the one which you sent. I find > it odd that emails which could be described as announcements are sent > to this mailing list when there is another mailing list for that > purpose. Indeed, and I think there are three effects here: 1. Many announcements go to <ietf-announce>, but the sender wants to make sure that an announcement of particular importance to the community is seen as widely as possible and also posts it to <ietf>. Examples are solicitations for NomCom members, candidates, and feedback; and announcements about what happened with IETF 107. 2. Depending upon what email client you use and how it presents the messages (I use the gmail web client and see this effect) a message posted to <ietf-announce> and replied to by someone in the community (with the reply going to <ietf>) will appear in the client to be on both lists. 3. The number of people who can post to <ietf-announce> is intentionally quite limited. My messages about the last-call list experiment, for example, could have been sent by the IETF Chair or the Secretariat and gone to the <ietf-announce> list, but (a) as I was holding the "token" on that we decided that I would send it on behalf of the IESG, and (b) as the message was asking for discussion, the ensuing discussion would happen on <ietf> anyway. > The issue, previously, was that a person sending a message to the > mailing list might receive a scornful reply in response to an on-list > comment. Will that be evaluated as part of the planned experiment? I don't see that this has anything to do with the experiment of separating last call discussions onto their own list, so I don't think that's part of the evaluation. But I will say that we, as a community, are doing our best to avoid scornful replies in general and to take action when they happen. I hope we all will do our parts to move us as far away from scornful replies as we can. Barry On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 6:29 PM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Barry, > At 08:00 AM 30-04-2020, 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: > > I choose 3. > > I asked a question [1] about the planned experiment in September > 2019. Nobody from the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) > commented on it. I would prefer if the IESG provided some input > about the results of the experiment instead the current approach. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > 1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L0k7JbcSzrrKvGnbS0i_Ouurq5s/ >
