Le 13/03/2020 à 13:10, tom petch a écrit :
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Sayre sayrer@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 13/03/2020 06:36:22
Hi,
In my view, the experiment is a success.
<tp>
A partial success. It took me a while to realise that Last Call announcements could not be found there. This was a particular issue last week when I blinked and while I did, in excess of 500 new posts appeared on the ietf-announce list making any last call announcement hard to find (My MUA support is wrecked and the web interface is primitive
---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
https://www.oeclassic.com/
), I have found myself responding to a gen-art or secdir post which can only muddy the waters as my comments are totally unrelated to their comments,
So to make it work, please post all Last Call announcements to the Last Call list; it is obvious really.
Tom Petch
</tp>
It seems like the general IETF is currently concerned with issues not related to document review.
This is the question I am raising to myself, too.
I think in general, there are very few things important right now.
I struggle to concentrate on the ietf matter precisely.
I think as long as we post here as usual, regardless of how far the
topic is on topic or not, is a good thing.
Alex
thanks,
Rob
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:14 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
