On 15-Sep-19 10:07, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> I have had the impression that, despite dropouts due to volume
>>> on the list and other factors, the vast majority of active IETF
>>> participants (those who were contributing to focused technical
>>> mailings lists such as WG ones and/or coming to meetings and
>>> participating in technical work) were still on the IETF list.
>>
>> I wonder if we could change from an impression to some data?
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> (A) How many people* are subscribed to ietf@ ?
>
> About 1800.
>
> But as I scan through the list, I see addresses that I know not to be
> active any more. And it's pretty much impossible to have any idea of
> who actually looks at the messages, and so on.
>
>> (B) How many people are eligible under the current NomCom rule?
>>
>> (C) How many people are "active" in some other sense (e.g. have sent mail to *any* IETF list in the past year)?
>>
>> How many people are in (A) only, in (A) & (B), in (A) & (C), in (B) or (C) but not (A)?
>
> This all might be interesting,
Yes, I think it's interesting in a broader context too.
> but I think the real data that we'll be
> able to collect as we experiment, and that we'll find useful, is this:
>
> (α) How many people unsubscribe from the IETF Discussion list after
> the Last Call list is active?
>
> (β) How many people unsubscribe from the Last Call list?
>
> (γ) How many new subscribers do we get for the two lists over time,
> and how do they coordinate?
>
> You think?
Yes, certainly. But cross-checking against ietf-announce (where the Last
Calls are sent) also seems relevant.
Brian
>
> -- Barry
>
>> We coud add
>>
>> (D) How many people are subscribed to ietf-announce@
>>
>> * people = distinct email addresses excluding the + construct.
>>
>> These data exist if someone in the Secretariat could extract them.
>>
>> Regards
>> Brian
>
