----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Resnick" <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Robert Sparks" <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 10:49 PM > On 2/9/15 2:11 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > > I _think_ the conversation you need to be having to address your > > objection is with the IESG on the decision to add the group to the > > default notification list. > > That's fair. Speaking as one of the folks involved in the change: > > The IESG, in part at the behest of the community, wanted to (by default) > make sure that IESG ballots were copied to the WG mailing list instead > of being a private conversation between the authors, the chairs, and the > IESG, invisible to anyone else in the community. Seeing the ballots can > always be turned off on a case-by-case basis, but it seemed better to > have that as default instead of having to remember to turn it on on a > case-by-case basis. I think that the workings of the IETF are much improved by being better informed as to what the IESG is doing and when. I note too that what I see varies by WG so someone, WG Chair or AD, is doing something selective in this area. I prefer to be told - I can always delete the e-mail which, given the structure of the IETF WGs, is something I have to do a lot of anyway. I am rarely interested in everything a WG takes up, sometimes only a third of the adopted I-Ds (apps-discuss and v6ops come to mind as having a particularly broad palette). One or two more deletions is neither here nor there (and sometimes it also serves as a 'keepalive' on a quiet WG list - saves me checking the archives to see if I have been unwittingly unsubscribed :-). So, strong support for the better informed WG, even when it means that I have more e-mails to delete, Tom Petch > Now, the mechanism used to accomplish that (adding the WG to the .notify > alias, which in turn adds it to the .all alias) sends *all* > notifications regarding a document to the WG by default. Perhaps we want > to change that. > > Are there particular notifications that you *don't* want copied to the > WG? Or maybe more to the point, are there notifications that you *do* > want copied to the WG? > > We'll work with the tools folks to make the right thing happen. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > >