Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx

[Tim Chown <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7 Jun 2013, at 16:52, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So why not move the signal?

Put IETF Last Call mail on last-call@xxxxxxxx and leave this list for everything else.

The discussion still has to happen somewhere.   I certainly am not restricting my meaningful participation in last calls, but even in that case it is important to be restrained and not get into long fruitless discussions, which, I am afraid, I am wont to do.

It's a significant problem for those who *have* to read the threads, in particular document authors, WG chairs, and ADs. Hats off to them for keeping up with it where they need to.

As another example, the v6ops list has recently also had four threads run well over the 100 message count, specifically end to end response time, ULA usage, "being careful" about ULAs and the semantic prefix thread. 

Of course, a healthy debate is a good thing, as is having an open process for discussion. If we had very few comments that would certainly not be good either. But I fear that some valuable contributions are either being drowned out, or that some people with valuable input are being put off contributing.

Tim