On 16 Sep 2019, at 9:15, Barry Leiba wrote:
I think the issue is that you (and a few others) are concerned that if we move last-call discussion to another list, fewer people will follow that list, and, therefore, fewer people will be exposed to the last-call discussions and possibly be moved to join some of them. On the other hand, others, including the people who suggested the split in the first place, think that actually *more* people will be likely to pay attention to the last-call discussion if they're on a mailing list that's separate from the high-volume that is the IETF Discussion list.
Indeed, it's possible that more people will follow the general discussion list than they do now, in addition to following the last-call list: Part of the problem people are expressing is the inability to wade through the volume. I presume that most people now have different IETF lists go to different views or mailboxes in their client, or (like me) use the IETF IMAP server and read multiple mailboxes, each in it's own view. If I know that I can go to the last-call list when I'm in the mood for technical discussions, or go to the general list when I'm in the mood for other sorts of discussions, I'm likely to do both on a regular basis, and less likely to be discouraged from doing one for fear of having to wade through the other.
BTW: With regard to the IMAP server, it might be good to see what stats you can get on usage there. You may find people subscribed to lists that way and not in mailman. (I happen to remain subscribed in mailman because some lists don't use the Global-Whitelist for posting privileges.) If you only look at regular subscriptions, you may miss some data.
pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/ All connections to the world are tenuous at best
