On Jun 8, 2013, at 6:09 AM, <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I believe that last calls must stay on this ietf list. > > Any last-call-only list must be *in addition* to the ietf list, with all announcements crossposted, and anyone sensitive to general discussion can subscribe to that instead. > > Last calls need wide exposure. > > (I'm acked in at least one RFC as a result of discussion on this list as a result of last call.) > > I'd go further and say that if you're contributing to an ietf workgroup, subscribing to ietf and ietf-announce should be mandatory for posting rights in that group. The ietf list has 2,155 subscribers, Announce, 3,203 with 915 duplicates, for total unique addresses of 4,442. Ray > Sure, you can filter the mails to /dev/null, but getting a broad idea of what's going on is a good thing, no? I'm willing to bet that at least half of our design problems have resulted from people doing narrowly-focused work in only one group or area... > > Lloyd Wood > http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ > > > ________________________________________ > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glen Zorn [glenzorn@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 08 June 2013 07:31 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Best list for IETF last calls [was: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx] > > On 06/08/2013 02:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the >> Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that, >> your mail is rather likely to get junked. >> >> I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF >> discussion list. That is exactly the right place for them. > > Since I've requested (read "begged" ;-) for such threads to be moved to > their own list on several occasions, I disagree again. > >> It's rather trivial to filter them into a dedicated folder; >> I have one called 'lastcallsin', that also picks up most >> WG Last Call threads, although those have less standardised >> subject headers. > > This would appear to work consistently only as long as 'Rule 1' above is > not followed. > >> >> Brian >> >> On 08/06/2013 06:17, Juliao Braga wrote: >>> +1 >>> >>> Em 07/06/2013 15:09, Ulrich Herberg escreveu: >>>> I like the idea of a separate list for last calls. It would not solve >>>> the issue of noise for all of us (and not reduce the overall amount of >>>> emails), but it would separate general discussions from IETF LCs. I >>>> have IETF emails filtered by mailing list into different IMAP folders, >>>> and thus a separation could be useful for me. >>>> >>>> Ulrich >>>