Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The ietf-lastcall split has been good for ietf-announce volume, but
> But here's the thing: That split should have not affected the volume on
> ietf-announce *at all*. It should have reduced volume on
> <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, which is a very different thing. This isn't the
Yes, sorry, I mis-typed that.
The split has helped me manage the threads and volume better.
> I believe that having a new "rfp-announce" list is a fine thing *if*
> RFC announcements are posted to *both* ietf-announce and rfc-announce.
> That should satisfy all the concerns here: those who subscribe to
> ietf-announce need to change nothing and will still get RFP
> announcements, and those who only want RFC announcements and not the
> other stuff can subscribe only to rfp-announce -- it's an individual
> choice.
I can live with this.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
