> I'm not sure how the desire for IETF Last Call discussions to be on a
> dedicated and constrained mailing list
many years ago, a housing development thought they had a bad crime rate.
so they built a fence around it and only let residents in. the crime
rate stayed the same. funny thing.
procm
On 09/06/2013 13:20, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure how the desire for IETF Last Call discussions
> to be on a dedicated and constrained mailing list in any way
> implies that this generalized and unconstrained list is somehow a failure.
>
> Filtering by subject line is unreliable.
>
Hi,
I'm not sure how the desire for IETF Last Call discussions
to be on a dedicated and constrained mailing list in any way
implies that this generalized and unconstrained list is somehow a failure.
Filtering by subject line is unreliable.
For example, please provide a filter that will
not have a
On 09/06/2013 07:55, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 6/8/13 10:09 AM, SM wrote:
>> As an off-topic comment, there are are alternative ways in making a
>> decision; the best judgement of the most experienced or IETF Consensus.
>
> I don't think it's off-topic. Consensus (rough or otherwise) requires
> t
On 6/8/13 10:09 AM, SM wrote:
> As an off-topic comment, there are are alternative ways in making a
> decision; the best judgement of the most experienced or IETF Consensus.
I don't think it's off-topic. Consensus (rough or otherwise) requires
that at some point people can live with decisions wit
rs,
working group Chairs and the responsible Area Director are presumed
to see all such messages.
Is posting the summary list ranking a form of intimidation? I don't
know. If ietf@ietf.org is a failure as significant issues are not
showing up on the list (see quoted text above) or if t
