Hi, Seems like it will be effective at reducing the cross section of the community that will reached by a last call. If that is what you all want. avri On 12-Sep-19 16:43, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Three comments: > > 1. Slightly to my surprise, this is fully consistent with RFC 2026, which > says: > This "Last-Call" notification shall be > via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list. Comments on a > Last-Call shall be accepted from anyone, and should be sent as > directed in the Last-Call announcement. > I think there may be other places where the ietf@xxxxxxxx list is documented > as the venue for last calls, but for the experiment, we're fine. > > 2. Are we sure? Yes, this will reduce traffic on the list, but one view is > that it's the most important traffic of all. > > 3. Personally, I simply don't care. I will adjust my filters to direct the > displaced traffic to the same inbox as ietf@xxxxxxxx. > > Regards > Brian > > On 13-Sep-19 04:14, Barry Leiba wrote: >> As we discussed in the plenary session at IETF 105 in Montréal, some >> community members have suggested moving document last-call discussions >> onto a dedicated "last-call" mailing list, and off of the general >> <ietf@xxxxxxxx> list. The latter is a high-volume list with a lot of >> varied discussion, and some think that it would be useful to separate >> the general discussion from the last-call discussion, to allow people >> to choose which discussions (or both) to follow. In the IETF 105 >> plenary, support was expressed for that separation. >> >> The IESG agrees, and wants to try an experiment to that end. We >> propose to create <last-call@xxxxxxxx> and to direct last-call >> comments and discussions there (the last-call announcements would >> still go to <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>, with "reply-to" set to the new >> list). That list would be monitored by volunteers recruited by the >> IETF Chair, and digressions would be nudged back to <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, >> while we would ask people having last-call discussions on this list to >> please move them to the new list. We would get the tools team >> involved so that the distribution lists for directorate and >> review-team reviews would be updated appropriately. >> >> Our plan is to create the new list and pre-subscribe everyone who is >> subscribed to <ietf@xxxxxxxx> at that time. Of course, anyone could >> unsubscribe to either or both lists immediately or later, but we think >> that doing it this way would minimize the likelihood that people would >> miss important stuff because of the move, and folks can choose what >> they prefer from there. >> >> After six months, we would do an initial evaluation, including getting >> feedback from the community, to see how the experiment is working. If >> it seems worth continuing we would do so, and at a point that the >> community decides that the experiment is a success (should it so >> decide), we would start an update to BCP 45 to formally move the >> location for last-call discussions, and we would update the 2007 IESG >> Statement on Last Call Guidance. >> >> We invite comments, here, on this plan, by the end of September. As I >> say above, we've heard support from the community for the general >> idea, and we'd like to make sure this direction is what the community >> wants. >> >> Barry, for the IESG >> >> . >>
