On 29/09/2021 17:30, tom petch wrote:
On 29/09/2021 13:11, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2021-9-27, at 18:36, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In an admirable effort to be transparent, we have inundated this list
in particular with data. We now need to take the time to reduce that
data to usable information. Please take another swing.
the IESG certainly could. But I'm also pretty convinced that whatever
proposal we came up with would get improved by the community pretty
immediately.
So maybe we could try the opposite, and see if the community has some
consensus on what information they would like to retain on
ietf-announce, under the assumption that that would then remain our
lists for broad announcements.
For reference, here's again the list of posting classes that currently
go there, and the count of messages in each class in the last year:
1. Announcements sent manually by <various roles> = 284
2. Announcements of new and updated WG charters & WG closures = 44
3. (included in above 44)
4. Announcements of new non-WG mailing lists = 13
5. Announcements of new RFCs = 275
6. IESG and LLC telechat announcements = 39
7. Announcements of document actions = 175
8. Announcements of IESG conflict-review results = 14
9. Last call announcements for I-Ds = 174 (+ 4 for other actions)
10. Interim WG meeting announcements = 256
The "important-news" proposal would only retain those under (1) above.
(We could have a conversation if some of those could also be moved
elsewhere, but that's maybe a separate discussion.)
I said before that the e-mails of least general interest IMHO are those
from the Director, which seem to make up almost half of category 1) most
of which I see as being of little or no immediate concern. The
exception I made was for outages of our infrastructure, past, present
and future, since I see those as bringing work to a grinding halt.
Yet today I see notice of an outage of a key part of our infrastructure
on October 4th that has not been posted to ietf, ietf-announce or any
such list AFAICT.
Weird.
Tom Petch
<snip>
Tom Petch
For any type of posting we'd remove, we could of course create a new
list, so that the information was still shared. I understand that when
we move to mailman3, we'll get a much better web-based subscription
interface that will make managing subscriptions much more
straightforward.
Thanks,
Lars
