Barry, Overall, I don’t care. However, sending this thread to the last-call@xxxxxxxx list, seems to me to defeat the purpose of the last call list. That is, it is to be used for IETF w.g. last calls. Other discussions, like this one, should happen on the ietf@xxxxxxxx list. Bob > On Apr 30, 2020, at 8:15 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 > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
