Joel, > On Jul 18, 2023, at 7:12 AM, Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I am having trouble getting my head around these two proposals. > > P1 is to have a cross-WG list for all WG adoption calls. That would probably be the only announce list that I would choose not to monitor. If I care that much about the work progress in a WG, I should be monitoring the email lsit of that WG. If I care that much about early stage drafts which may well be concerning, I should be monitoring all I-D announcements (which I do) so I have an idea of where concern is. And if something is sufficiently concerning, I can start monitoring the relevant WG email list. > > P2 is to have a cross-WG list for all WG last calls. There are two problems with that. First, that seems to assume that IETF last call doesn't work. If we have that problem, we should be addressing it, not trying to work around it. Second, technically and as a distinctly less matter, WGs are not required to have WG last calls, although I personally consider it a very good idea. I agree. I too am not a fan of these proposals. For IETF work I am interested in, I subscribe to the w.g. mailing list. There I see the discussion, adoption calls, and w.g. last calls. I see little value in getting w.g. announcements for everything else because I am not following the discussions. The IETF last call is the place where we get IETF wide review. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
