Rather than providing these types of summaries it would make more sense to provide a conclusion of the individual discussions. This, btw, often does not happen in working groups either. As a consequent nobody knows (after a long discussion) whether there was a conclusion or what the conclusion could have been. Summarizing some of the discussions on the IETF mailing list would even be more challenging ..... I better go not into the details on why that is. Ciao Hannes Daniel Brown wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Thomas, >> >> I would personally find this more useful if it were measured by >> subject line rather than by sender. >> > > Thread metrics can be found all around the web if you're > interested. GMANE and MARC are just two such services. > > I took from Tom's idea and wrote a list metrics system for the PHP > community earlier this year (running on the highest-traffic PHP list, > php-general), which includes total traffic, total posters, messages > and bytes by poster, and also total lines of code and code per poster. > The theory behind that is to see how much useful data is passed per > message (like SNR, basically), but it's become more of a competition > there than anything. > > It's interesting to see who's contributed what during what period, > and to develop patterns based on high-traffic weeks compared to > advancement of the language. Measuring by subject would be difficult, > as subject lines change frequently (e.g. - "WAS: Old Subject") and > subjects also sometimes include RE:, FWD:, et cetera. GMANE, MARC, et > al, I believe organize by ThreadID. > > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf