On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ray, > > On 12/08/14 11:10, Ray Pelletier wrote: >> We just lost another 10% (?) from this list. At Plenary in Toronto >> several folks admitted to unsubscribing years ago from this list. >> Without judging whether or not the community needs a list for all the >> varied discussions that take place here, isn't it time for a Last >> Call list? > > FWIW, I'm not convinced. Those already go to IETF-announce and > I bet a LC-discuss list would have all the same issues. I also > think there's a bunch of folks who'd object and haven't seen > their objections discussed, but I could be wrong there. > > Adding the #subscribers to the Narten numbers might be useful > though so we could see the evolution of list-size. Can someone please remind me what problem exactly we are trying to solve? Do we really think that the volume of LC comments are so large that folk don't participate on -discuss? That there is so much faff on discuss that folk cannot see the LC discussions? There is significant value in having a general discussion list -- we are, in theory, a community -- part of being part of a community involves knowing the other folk, and building a shared ethos. -discuss is, IMO, the closest we have to that. Things like PHB's Tardis discussion didn't hurt anyone, and provided A: some education, B: some chuckles, and C: an understanding of some other folks interests. Having a separate list for LC seem to me like it will simply end up as a bit bucket -- if I missed discussions of a draft in a working group, and I missed it on IETF-announce, I'm not magically going to see and care on LC-discuss... and, if I do, my comments are not likely to be useful / relevant[0]. If anyone does subscribe to a LC-discuss list (because, y' know, filters on IETF-announce are too hard?), I suspect it will simply end up trolling -- having someone pop out of the woodwork and ask "Why did you choose to do X in this way? Y is better..." without having followed the WG discussion is simply not useful. If they actually care / have a valid opinion they should have been involved in the WG discussion, or seen the IETF-announce thread. Let's not fall into the trap of judging our value by a: how many people come to a physical meeting or b: are members of a mailing list - these are not useful metrics. W [0]: Colin Doyle (one of the people in the NOC) made me my current favorite IETF shirt -- it says "Your comments are neither interesting nor relevant, but at least they provide no new information". > > S. > > >> >> Ray >> >>> On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:57 AM, Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Melinda Shore >>>> <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/14 9:13 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >>>>>> On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:07 AM, Christian Huitema >>>>>> <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Are you guys building a >>>>>> bike-shed? >>>>> Yes, but it's a special one that's bigger on the inside... >>>> >>>> And ... we're done here. >>> >>> And to think I've resisted subscribing to _this_ list for so long. >>> I never knew what I was missing! >>> >> >> >> >