On 7 Jun 2013, at 17:12, joel jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6/7/13 6:03 PM, Tim Chown wrote: >> >> 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. > v6ops had a single draft which attracted ~1100 messages over the course of a year so this isn't new or unusual over there. A small number of posters tend to be the majority of the volume on several topics, so if you're reading to understand the positions of the working group or to measure consensus on the list some judicious sorting is required. Indeed. Sorting and sifting through 500+ emails about one homenet topic over on 6man was similarly challenging (for the homenet arch text). And many of those long v6ops threads were/are relevant to that. It would be nice to determine some way to keep discussions open, without creating unnecessary volume, and repeating already raised arguments. Maybe the answer isn't email for judging consensus. As an outsider, I've seen the IESG/AD system, which seems to essentially allow positions on drafts to be expressed, and easily viewed at a glance. Maybe that's part of the answer, somehow. Some "position" view on a draft, that people can update/edit as the list discussion goes on, that becomes more useful "at a glance" for WG chairs and document editors? We could continue as is with emails, but I've heard of a number of (very wise and valued) past contributors who no longer express their views, because of the problem of volume. Or maybe it's not a valid concern. Tim