Andy, I believe that comments on proposed new WGs are also very critical, since they determine where the IETF puts its resources. So if there was to be a split, I would put Last Call *and* WG Review comments both on the new list. I just doubt that it will get rid of the noise; I have about 50 filters to do that for me.
Brian Andy Bierman wrote: > > At 09:29 AM 11/19/2001 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >Andy, > > > >I don't see how this will help. The nonsense messages will still come, > >from the usual sources, often copied to both lists, which will only > >increase the level of annoyance. > > IETF Last Call is a critical part of the Standards Process. > It's our last chance to do a cross-domain sanity check on > new technology, and give this input to the IESG, before > they decide to approve a standard or not. > > These critical emails comprise less than 1 percent of > the traffic on the IETF list. (My unscientific survey says...) > I wouldn't characterize the other 99% as pure noise, maybe just 95%. > > I know of several longtime IETFers who ignore this list because > of S/N ratio is so bad. If there was a [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, > more people might make Last Call comments. People who > post off-topic messages will be shouted off the list and > if they keep doing it, they will be blocked from posting. > > Andy > > >[Splitting the -announce list doesn't have this disadvantage.] > > > > Brian > > > >Andy Bierman wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I would like the IESG to consider splitting this list into 2 lists. > >> One list for discussion of Last Call issues and another for > >> everything else (including minor stuff like splitting the > >> IETF-Announce or IETF lists :-) > >> > >> thanks, > >> Andy
