I agree that lists are cheap and that one of our main jobs is to facilitate discussion, so I have no issue with the creation of the list. I just hoped for a bit more explanation -- even "For details see <this draft>" would have helped (I didn't know there was a draft at all). Anyway, just for future reference; thanks for listening. Barry On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Full disclosure: I approved this list, so feel free to be unhappy at me. > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> >> Hiya, >> >> On 13/09/18 03:37, Barry Leiba wrote: >> > This really should have come with a fuller description: I shouldn't >> > have to contact the list admins just to find out whether a new mailing >> > list ought to be on my radar or not. >> >> Yeah. And the archive's empty. And it uses the almost >> always meaningless prefix "cyber" over and over in >> many predictable (but meaningless) ways. > > > Well, the archive is empty because it was created today, so I don't think > that's much of a critique. > > I'll take responsibility for not insisting on there being a very detailed > description. I generally find the descriptions pretty uninformative (see, > for instance https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm) so my bar isn't > very high here, but I see how others might feel differently. > > > >> So that's all bad signs IMO then (except for the >> existence of the draft.) >> >> I'm also a bit sad that we've gotten to the point >> where we're setting up lists driven to any extent >> by what's really an ill-defined marketing buzzword. >> >> >> OTOH, the goal according to [1] is an information >> model, so it could be mostly to totally harmless I >> guess;-) >> >> Only other thing to note is that this happens so >> often (new list for who knows what) that maybe the >> tooling's a bit wrong and encourages folks to ok >> or ask for lists without considering that others >> don't have the same (or any) context. > > > I think you and I are just going to have to disagree here. Lists are cheap > -- they're not WGs -- and I bias in favor of facilitating discussion. I > think this is appropriate especially in view of the fact that one of the > first questions we ask for a proposed BOF is whether there has been a lot of > list traffic. Again, you're free to feel differently. > > -Ekr > > >> >> Cheers, >> S. >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jordan-cacao-introduction-00 >> >> >> > >> > Barry >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:58 PM, IETF Secretariat >> > <ietf-secretariat@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. >> >> >> >> List address: cacao@xxxxxxxx >> >> Archive: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cacao/ >> >> To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cacao >> >> >> >> Purpose: >> >> This email list will be used to discuss Collaborative Automated Course >> >> of >> >> Action Operations (CACAO) for Cyber Security >> >> >> >> For additional information, please contact the list administrators. >> >> >> > >> > > > -- Barry -- Barry Leiba (barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx) http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
