Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 25-Sep-23 07:10, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> > Certainly, but that depends on humans. We also need filters for github
>> > messages, because if you are subscribed to a repo, you tend to get a
>> > lot of trivia as wel
On 25-Sep-23 07:10, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Certainly, but that depends on humans. We also need filters for github
> messages, because if you are subscribed to a repo, you tend to get a
> lot of trivia as well as substantive discussions. There is per
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Certainly, but that depends on humans. We also need filters for github
> messages, because if you are subscribed to a repo, you tend to get a
> lot of trivia as well as substantive discussions. There is perhaps a way
> to get a digest of activity on a r
On 23-Sep-23 06:42, Michael Richardson wrote:
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> So, i am always happy in taking recommendations how to best rectify this
type of issue.
> I am of course always a believer in better tooling, but i wouldn't know
if/how we would
> best copy e.g. relevant par
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> So, i am always happy in taking recommendations how to best rectify this
type of issue.
> I am of course always a believer in better tooling, but i wouldn't know
if/how we would
> best copy e.g. relevant parts of the github discuss to the mailing list.
For
We're having a range of good and important work threads on github, and as much
as i love
the automatic threading and later easy review of github, as a WG chair i still
have to worry about us complying with IETF rules as well as concerns of ADs and
participants.
If we do not copy these discussions
