John > On 26/02/2020, at 8:19 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > .... > Those are really not arguments to avoid splitting the lists. > Instead, they suggest that, if you are going to do such a thing, > that you be aware of possible unintended side-effects and figure > out a way to mitigate them or even improve things because of > them. Would we benefit from a monthly summary report from you, > one that summarizes or details outstanding RFPs, not just > plenary reports? Do we need more explanatory material about why > those who subscribe to the IETF-announce list might want to > subscribe to the other lists too? Should subscribing to > IETF-Announce automatically put one on the other lists on an > opt-out basis rather than requiring people to find them one at a > time and subscribe (that would protect people who only want to > see the RFP list from being bothered by the irrelevant-to-them > traffic on the IETF-Announce but would keep the information for > subscribers to the latter constant)? As we continue to break > things out (I definitely see a trend) should we think of > IETF-Announce as a list of lists to which people can subscribe > (or opt out) selectively if they so choose but whose default is > "all announcements"? Yes, this is the important issue to consider and a useful set of questions to help frame that. It’s also a wider problem than announcements/reports - I only realised last week that there was an active mtgvenue list, one of many “admin” lists, and also a tools-discuss list, one of many “devops(?)” lists. > And so on. I don't know the answers to any of those questions, > but would hope that you (and we) would think about them. Will do. I suspect the way forward requires a dose of creativity. Jay -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director +64 21 678840 > > best, > john >
