+1 While I enjoy the periodic 'this list needs fixing' discussions, I am always happy when the list remains as it is.[0] avri [0] Colin is always right. On 12-Aug-14 10:32, Warren Kumari wrote: > 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! >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >