Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
Alan, et al. Message received. I agree. Changes being made. Experiment provided valuable information. Sorry for the pain. Ray IAD Alan Hawrylyshen wrote: Folks; I understand the utility and need for the administrative staff to have a mailing alias for all registered delegates for the 66th IETF event. However, in all the meetings I have attended - which is more than a few, but less than most of you - I have never been deluged with such a volume of non-critical announcements in my main inbox. I hope that people will understand my strong desire and sympathize with my point of view when I request that all general IETF messages be posted uniquely to the IETF general list and that this address be reserved only for the critical or emergency announcements by the administrative staff. One step better would be for this address to be moderated so we no longer receive various complaints about water closets and wifi unless we seek them out on the IETF discussion lists. :-) Perhaps if there is a strong desire to have a 'hallway or watercooler style' list for discussions pertaining uniquely to IETF 66 attendees, we could create a NEW mailing list that is OPT-IN called 66attendees-chat (or similar) at ietf.org. I'd even volunteer to set one up (at a different domain of course) for the duration of IETF 66. My sincere apologies if I have misunderstood the purpose of the 66attendees address but my BlackBerry is going crazy with things that I would not normally choose to have in my commercial, corporate email box. Respectfully, Alan Hawrylyshen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
Ray, I sent a similar email in reply to the endless thread on Internet access at the Delta. Please only allow emails to the participants list from IETF personel for important meeting-related information. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
Ray, May I make a suggestion for the next time around? How about if the registration page asks if you want to be subscribed to this list? As I understood it, this experiment was performed at the request of people on the ietf discussion mailing list. That list is _not_ the appropriate place to talk about cookie shortages, mail and netowrk problems and issues with the hotel, _either_. Since the registration page already has a number of questions it ask about things we might or might not want to do. Why not add one more - and assume the default answer is "no"? I like the idea of having a separate list because it allows me to decide quickly what I can safely ignore most of the time. -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: Ray Pelletier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:53 PM --> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --> Cc: ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias --> --> Alan, et al. --> Message received. --> I agree. --> Changes being made. --> Experiment provided valuable information. --> Sorry for the pain. --> Ray --> IAD --> --> --> Alan Hawrylyshen wrote: --> --> > Folks; --> > --> > I understand the utility and need for the administrative --> staff to have --> > a mailing alias for all registered delegates for the 66th --> IETF event. --> > However, in all the meetings I have attended - which is --> more than a --> > few, but less than most of you - I have never been --> deluged with such a --> > volume of non-critical announcements in my main inbox. --> > --> > I hope that people will understand my strong desire and sympathize --> > with my point of view when I request that all general --> IETF messages be --> > posted uniquely to the IETF general list and that this address be --> > reserved only for the critical or emergency announcements by the --> > administrative staff. One step better would be for this --> address to be --> > moderated so we no longer receive various complaints about water --> > closets and wifi unless we seek them out on the IETF --> discussion lists. --> > :-) --> > --> > Perhaps if there is a strong desire to have a 'hallway or --> watercooler --> > style' list for discussions pertaining uniquely to IETF --> 66 attendees, --> > we could create a NEW mailing list that is OPT-IN called --> > 66attendees-chat (or similar) at ietf.org. I'd even --> volunteer to set --> > one up (at a different domain of course) for the duration --> of IETF 66. --> > --> > My sincere apologies if I have misunderstood the purpose of the --> > 66attendees address but my BlackBerry is going crazy with --> things that --> > I would not normally choose to have in my commercial, --> corporate email --> > box. --> > --> > Respectfully, --> > --> > Alan Hawrylyshen --> > --> > ___ --> > Ietf mailing list --> > Ietf@ietf.org --> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> > --> --> ___ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@ietf.org --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
Gray, Eric wrote: Ray, May I make a suggestion for the next time around? How about if the registration page asks if you want to be subscribed to this list? Will do. As I understood it, this experiment was performed at the request of people on the ietf discussion mailing list. Nope. It was my attempt to provide *useful*, *important* info to attendees only, and a list to send a meeting survey sometime after the meeting. I did not implement it well. That list is _not_ the appropriate place to talk about cookie shortages, mail and netowrk problems and issues with the hotel, _either_. Since the registration page already has a number of questions it ask about things we might or might not want to do. Why not add one more - and assume the default answer is "no"? I like the idea of having a separate list because it allows me to decide quickly what I can safely ignore most of the time. -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: Ray Pelletier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:53 PM --> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --> Cc: ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias --> --> Alan, et al. --> Message received. --> I agree. --> Changes being made. --> Experiment provided valuable information. --> Sorry for the pain. --> Ray --> IAD --> --> --> Alan Hawrylyshen wrote: --> --> > Folks; --> > --> > I understand the utility and need for the administrative --> staff to have --> > a mailing alias for all registered delegates for the 66th --> IETF event. --> > However, in all the meetings I have attended - which is --> more than a --> > few, but less than most of you - I have never been --> deluged with such a --> > volume of non-critical announcements in my main inbox. --> > --> > I hope that people will understand my strong desire and sympathize --> > with my point of view when I request that all general --> IETF messages be --> > posted uniquely to the IETF general list and that this address be --> > reserved only for the critical or emergency announcements by the --> > administrative staff. One step better would be for this --> address to be --> > moderated so we no longer receive various complaints about water --> > closets and wifi unless we seek them out on the IETF --> discussion lists. --> > :-) --> > --> > Perhaps if there is a strong desire to have a 'hallway or --> watercooler --> > style' list for discussions pertaining uniquely to IETF --> 66 attendees, --> > we could create a NEW mailing list that is OPT-IN called --> > 66attendees-chat (or similar) at ietf.org. I'd even --> volunteer to set --> > one up (at a different domain of course) for the duration --> of IETF 66. --> > --> > My sincere apologies if I have misunderstood the purpose of the --> > 66attendees address but my BlackBerry is going crazy with --> things that --> > I would not normally choose to have in my commercial, --> corporate email --> > box. --> > --> > Respectfully, --> > --> > Alan Hawrylyshen --> > --> > ___ --> > Ietf mailing list --> > Ietf@ietf.org --> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> > --> --> ___ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@ietf.org --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
Please, take the opportunity that you are going to modify the registration page to remind about the invoices. In many economies/accounting systems, if you don't have an invoice, you can't account (legally speaking) the cost of the IETF attendance. I've been asking for this for more than 3 years already ... Hopefully now is going to happen ! I've been already in the case where auditors reject it and needed to pay from my own pocket instead of the company expenses. I think there is no excuse at all for IETF not doing so. Actually, and this is not fault, there is not excuse at all for not having done this just right after the first request 3 years ago or even sooner (if somebody else requested first). Regards, Jordi > De: Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:14:23 -0400 > Para: "Gray, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Asunto: Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias > > > > Gray, Eric wrote: > >> Ray, >> >> May I make a suggestion for the next time around? >> >> How about if the registration page asks if you want >> to be subscribed to this list? >> >> > Will do. > >> As I understood it, this experiment was performed at >> the request of people on the ietf discussion mailing list. >> >> > Nope. It was my attempt to provide *useful*, *important* info to > attendees only, and a list to send a meeting survey sometime after the > meeting. I did not implement it well. > >> That list is _not_ the appropriate place to talk about >> cookie shortages, mail and netowrk problems and issues with >> the hotel, _either_. >> >> Since the registration page already has a number of >> questions it ask about things we might or might not want to >> do. Why not add one more - and assume the default answer >> is "no"? >> >> I like the idea of having a separate list because it >> allows me to decide quickly what I can safely ignore most >> of the time. >> >> > -- > >> Eric >> >> --> -Original Message- >> --> From: Ray Pelletier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> --> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:53 PM >> --> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> --> Cc: ietf@ietf.org >> --> Subject: Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias >> --> >> --> Alan, et al. >> --> Message received. >> --> I agree. >> --> Changes being made. >> --> Experiment provided valuable information. >> --> Sorry for the pain. >> --> Ray >> --> IAD >> --> >> --> >> --> Alan Hawrylyshen wrote: >> --> >> --> > Folks; >> --> > >> --> > I understand the utility and need for the administrative >> --> staff to have >> --> > a mailing alias for all registered delegates for the 66th >> --> IETF event. >> --> > However, in all the meetings I have attended - which is >> --> more than a >> --> > few, but less than most of you - I have never been >> --> deluged with such a >> --> > volume of non-critical announcements in my main inbox. >> --> > >> --> > I hope that people will understand my strong desire and sympathize >> --> > with my point of view when I request that all general >> --> IETF messages be >> --> > posted uniquely to the IETF general list and that this address be >> --> > reserved only for the critical or emergency announcements by the >> --> > administrative staff. One step better would be for this >> --> address to be >> --> > moderated so we no longer receive various complaints about water >> --> > closets and wifi unless we seek them out on the IETF >> --> discussion lists. >> --> > :-) >> --> > >> --> > Perhaps if there is a strong desire to have a 'hallway or >> --> watercooler >> --> > style' list for discussions pertaining uniquely to IETF >> --> 66 attendees, >> --> > we could create a NEW mailing list that is OPT-IN called >> --> > 66attendees-chat (or similar) at ietf.org. I'd even >> --> volunteer to set >> --> > one up (at a different domain of course) for the duration >> --> of IETF 66. >> --> > >> --> > My sincere apologies if I have misunderstood the purpose of the >> --> > 66attendees address but my BlackBerry is going crazy with >> --> things that >> --> > I would not normally c
Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
On 11-Jul-2006, at 11:14, Ray Pelletier wrote: Nope. It was my attempt to provide *useful*, *important* info to attendees only, and a list to send a meeting survey sometime after the meeting. I did not implement it well. More feedback for you on the implementation: the mail that was sent on to the 66 attendees alias contained no useful header which could be used by (e.g.) sieve or procmail to reduce some of the pain involved in receiving the mail. For example, there was no List-Id: header, and no Sender: header. There was a Received: header which included the string "66attendees", but that seems like pretty weak regex-food. Whatever is done in future, it would be good if all lists/aliases/ whatever included something like a List-Id: header as a matter of routine. Joe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
Joe Abley wrote: On 11-Jul-2006, at 11:14, Ray Pelletier wrote: Nope. It was my attempt to provide *useful*, *important* info to attendees only, and a list to send a meeting survey sometime after the meeting. I did not implement it well. More feedback for you on the implementation: the mail that was sent on to the 66 attendees alias contained no useful header which could be used by (e.g.) sieve or procmail to reduce some of the pain involved in receiving the mail. For example, there was no List-Id: header, and no Sender: header. There was a Received: header which included the string "66attendees", but that seems like pretty weak regex-food. Whatever is done in future, it would be good if all lists/aliases/ whatever included something like a List-Id: header as a matter of routine. Concur. Ray Joe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
Ray Pelletier wrote: > Alan, et al. > Message received. > I agree. > Changes being made. > Experiment provided valuable information. > Sorry for the pain. 1. Having IETF administration try new things is considerably better than having IETF administration NOT try new things. 2. It wouldn't be experimenting if it were guaranteed to succeed. 3. At this stage, anything that gets done is really (at least) two experiments, not one. One is whatever is intended to be the experiment. The other is whether the process of making changes gets done better, over time... 4. Having a per-meeting special list has an obvious and reasonable basis. However it makes each meeting's list a special case for IETF administration and for attendees. Possible variations to consider: a. Have the list name be permanent (such as "ietf-attendees") so that recipients can have a filing filter that they create one time. b. Per Eric's suggestion, at registration time ask whether the registrant wants to be added to the list. Subscriptions are not removed after an ietf meeting. If someone wants to be removed, they use the usual unsubscription techniques (which, of course, also encourages having the standardized list-unsubscribe header.) c. Or, list membership is automatic with registration -- given the specific nature of this list, making membership be involuntary isn't necessarily unreasonable. If the registrant's email address is already subscribed, of course they don't get a second subscription. (List software is usually pretty good at reporting already-subscribed membership.) d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
On Jul 12, 2006, at 06:03, Dave Crocker wrote: 4. Having a per-meeting special list has an obvious and reasonable basis. However it makes each meeting's list a special case for IETF administration and for attendees. Possible variations to consider: a. Have the list name be permanent (such as "ietf-attendees") so that recipients can have a filing filter that they create one time. If the spam filtering is good, or its subscribers-only... otherwise, per-meeting names with a known, simple pattern (ietf$MEETINGNUM- attendees?) might be better, if a little harder to match in some filter software. d. Automatic subscription to a moderated, low-traffic announcement list, and optional subscription to a "chat" list for discussions of cookies, WCs, restaurants, etc. Ken ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
Another option to consider is to do the same thing that was done to the ietf@ietf.org list years ago: split it up into a list of important announcements that only the secretariat can post to, and a list of general interest items that anyone can post to. The announcement list would handle the schedule change announcements and would need to be extremely low traffic. The general interest list would let people post about local restaurants, local beer choices, etc. In addition to offering an optout for the subscriptions at registration time, have the list manager send a message to each person subscribed indicating what the list is about and *how to unsubscribe*. The lists *should* follow all the standards and good practices for mailing lists found in RFCs 2369, 2418, 2919 and 3934. Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave Crocker wrote: > > 4. Having a per-meeting special list has an obvious and reasonable basis. > However it makes each meeting's list a special case for IETF administration > and > for attendees. Possible variations to consider: ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
> Having a per-meeting special list has an obvious and reasonable basis. > However it makes each meeting's list a special case for IETF administration and for attendees. > Possible variations to consider: I think the best variation is automatic resgistration to meeting list, but to use this list only for urgent messages (either from secretariat, or allow from others bu moderated to allow only urgent messages through). All messages about download speed of cookies and healthfullness of WiFi should be directed to discussion list. This way everyone's existing email rules function as desired, and the emails are archived so that we can later compare meetings from the point of view of cookie speed, WiFi health, etc. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
How about this: Use the same mailing list. The secretariat marks important messages as important via the header flag customarily used for this purpose. Set the mailing list to strip out important/urgent flag on messages from anyone else. This means that my existing email config still works and I don't have to mess with it which would be rather painful given that I have email pagers and other stuff connected through it. > -Original Message- > From: Tony Hansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:08 AM > To: Ray Pelletier > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias > > Another option to consider is to do the same thing that was > done to the ietf@ietf.org list years ago: split it up into a > list of important announcements that only the secretariat can > post to, and a list of general interest items that anyone can > post to. The announcement list would handle the schedule > change announcements and would need to be extremely low > traffic. The general interest list would let people post > about local restaurants, local beer choices, etc. > > In addition to offering an optout for the subscriptions at > registration time, have the list manager send a message to > each person subscribed indicating what the list is about and > *how to unsubscribe*. > > The lists *should* follow all the standards and good > practices for mailing lists found in RFCs 2369, 2418, 2919 and 3934. > > Tony Hansen > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Dave Crocker wrote: > > > > 4. Having a per-meeting special list has an obvious and > reasonable basis. > > However it makes each meeting's list a special case for IETF > > administration and for attendees. Possible variations to consider: > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
Ken Raeburn wrote: On Jul 12, 2006, at 06:03, Dave Crocker wrote: 4. Having a per-meeting special list has an obvious and reasonable basis. However it makes each meeting's list a special case for IETF administration and for attendees. Possible variations to consider: a. Have the list name be permanent (such as "ietf-attendees") so that recipients can have a filing filter that they create one time. If the spam filtering is good, or its subscribers-only... otherwise, per-meeting names with a known, simple pattern (ietf$MEETINGNUM-attendees?) might be better, if a little harder to match in some filter software. d. Automatic subscription to a moderated, low-traffic announcement list, and optional subscription to a "chat" list for discussions of cookies, WCs, restaurants, etc. hey - I like looking at the cookie discussion even when I'm not there! Harald, who's on holiday this time - have a good one! ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
At 10:08 AM -0700 7/12/06, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: How about this: Use the same mailing list. The secretariat marks important messages as important via the header flag customarily used for this purpose. Set the mailing list to strip out important/urgent flag on messages from anyone else. This means that my existing email config still works and I don't have to mess with it which would be rather painful given that I have email pagers and other stuff connected through it. The 'Importance' header may be useful in your environment, but in many others it is useless. I'd much prefer segregation of traffic by 'List-ID' rather than 'Importance'. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly-selected tag: --- From new transmitters came the old stupidities. --Bertolt Brecht ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
Tony Hansen wrote: > Another option to consider is to do the same thing that was done to the > ietf@ietf.org list years ago: All of tony's suggestions (in this note) seem like an excellent path to pursue. d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
On Monday, July 10, 2006 10:52:42 PM -0400 Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alan, et al. Message received. I agree. Changes being made. Experiment provided valuable information. People don't like to be subscribed to mailing lists without their consent. They also don't like to be experimented upon without their consent. I think the former fact is fairly well-known within the IETF, and would have been revealed, along with people's specific preferences, if the question had been raised here prior to conducting the experiment. -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sr. Research Systems Programmer School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: The IETF 66 Attendees Alias
On Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:07:46 PM -0700 Randall Gellens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 10:08 AM -0700 7/12/06, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: How about this: Use the same mailing list. The secretariat marks important messages as important via the header flag customarily used for this purpose. Set the mailing list to strip out important/urgent flag on messages from anyone else. This means that my existing email config still works and I don't have to mess with it which would be rather painful given that I have email pagers and other stuff connected through it. The 'Importance' header may be useful in your environment, but in many others it is useless. I'd much prefer segregation of traffic by 'List-ID' rather than 'Importance'. Also, there is something to be said for cutting down on bandwidth usage by not even transmitting the "discussion" messages to people who haven't subscribed to that list. Of course, I expect Phill to be firmly in the camp that says there's so much bandwidth to go around these days that we needn't worry about being wasteful. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. -- Jeff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
