Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: CACAO

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

Lists are cheap to *create* - the costs come (and they add up) to those who have to determine whether to subscribe and participate.  Having enough information in the announcement so a prospective "investor" can decide without having to dig that the list may be safely ignored seems like common sense.  The converse - an announcement with no useful description - is usually one of either being lazy, or being oblivious or dismissive of other peoples time, or - in rare circumstances - trying to comply with the rules while hiding what's actually going on under a boring label.  

I don't have any problems with creating lists, but compare the description of this list with sdwan which was created on the same day:

Purpose:
SDWAN-SEC Mailing Listing is for discussing optimized (and in some sense
compromised) mechanisms in securing large scale SD-WAN deployment with
constrained resources. Discussing the security risks for special type of
IPsec solutions that utilize central controller to simplify some features
of IPsec to fit within the common constrains of large number low power
nodes managed by controller(s) via secure management channel.

Mike