On 4/22/21 17:27, Keith Moore wrote:
On 4/22/21 4:59 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 4/22/21 15:40, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Tom,
Last, comments from organised review teams should be sent to the last
call list as opposed to being made available to the community.
The last call list *is* available to the community, so this is just
being more specific about what "available to the community" means.
Is that a problem?
More pointedly -- it lets folks see discussions of IETF work product
without them getting lost among (checks notes) 150 messages about a
New York Times article, 132 posts about QUIC and DNSSEC, and 234
messages about inclusiveness.
I'm not necessarily saying these topics aren't worth discussing; but
it's important to get broad consensus on the documents we publish as
RFCs, and we can't afford to lose those conversations under the crush
of high-volume topics. The risk of documents in last call getting
lost in the noise is far more of a barrier to being "available to the
community" than the use of a dedicated mailing list.
One can credibly make the opposite argument also: that it's hard to
find the time/patience to scan all of the Last Call discussions that
happen, just so you can be "in the loop" for the relatively rare Last
Call discussions that seem important to you.
That's the same argument on a smaller scale: I asserted that we needed
(and then benefited from) a smaller haystack for the needles of
interest, and you're saying that the new, much smaller haystack may
still be too large for effective needle finding.
And it's a reasonable argument. I agree with the implication that
last-call@ was merely an improvement and not perfection, and something
like what you imply -- even finer grained breakdown than ietf@ and
last-call@ -- *might* be even *more* of an improvement.
/a
