HI. A few thoughts about mailing lists and topics -- not new,
but much more in focus for me after the last week or so...
The many decisions in recent years to split things off into
separate, issue- or function-specific, mailing lists have the
obvious advantage of improving the S/N ratio (as perceived by
participants) on the original list and the new one. At the same
time, when topics arise that effect (or should effect) the whole
community -- with carbon impact clearly (to me) on that list and
effective remote participation even higher on it -- pushing them
onto separate lists almost inevitably reduces diversity of those
participating in the discussions. It also reduces general
awareness that the discussions are going on. The balance is
delicate, but I suggest we are often not getting it right. It
becomes especially problematic when "discussed on specialized
list X" is confused with "discussed with and approved by the
community". For those who like to think about such things in
quantitative/statistical terms, if might be very interesting (if
it were possible) to compare those receiving and/or
participating in lists like admin-discuss@, tools-discuss@, and
ietf-nomcom@ with those on ietf@ or even ietf-announce@, looking
not just at demographic factors but at measures of other
involvement with, and contributions to, IETF substantive work.
This note is not intended as a complaint. It is just a
suggestion that the community think about the issues and that
the IESG (and, where relevant, the LLC) think carefully about
the difference between topics of interest to some specific group
and those of interest to the broader community. In addition,
when specialized lists are chosen, that we all be cautious about
interpreting consensus on those lists as consensus of the
community (or even those who might care abut the issues but who
have other priorities).
thanks,
john
