Hi Christian, > On Jul 18, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 7/18/2023 8:36 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >>> 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. > > I think this works well in theory, and it also works well in practice for old timers like you, Bob and Joel. Or for me. But it requires subscribing to high volume mailing lists, and then reading these lists. There is some evidence that many folks don't like to do that. I remain skeptical that some sort of broader distribution of w.g. adoption and last calls will be very useful. All that is in these emails is the draft name and the title of the document. Someone would have to see something in the title that sparks their interest (that draft name has very little info). Then they would have to read the draft and read the email discussion about this draft, before commenting on the w.g. list. I find it hard to believe this is going to happen very often. > We should be able to engineer something more focused, maybe combining the data tracker with some kind of subscription mechanism in which participants express their more or less narrow interests. It would have to be subject or topic based to be useful. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
