Subject: Six months in: evaluation of the last-call mailing list experiment

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:00:40 -0400

It's been around six months since we started the <[email-masked]>
list, and we said that we would evaluate the results after six months.
To that end, the IESG would like to see comments about how it's been
working.

Please respond to this thread to comment.  It would be helpful if the
first line of your comment gave a succinct view of your opinion on the
following 5-to-1 scale:

5: Perfect!  Don't even think about going back!
4: I really like it and want to keep it.
3: Neutral: I don't care either way.
2: I don't like it, but I can live with it if we decide to keep it.
1: It's terrible!  Please, please go back to the old way!

And, of course, if you have further comments beyond those numbers,
include those as well.  We want to know what you think.  Comments,
please, in the next couple of weeks, by 15 May.  Thanks!

Barry, for the IESG

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:05:05 -0400

4 (nothing in the IETF can be perfect)

> On Apr 30, 2020, at 11:00 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Jared Mauch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:05:40 -0400

> 5: Perfect!  Don't even think about going back!

I’ll go with this except I’m one of the people who has to step in should the list go wild.  

Overall, I’m happy with this.

- jared

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:14:48 -0400

3.  One more mailing list subscribed to is a detail.

I think a useful evaluation approach would be to see how the subscriber base 
for the two lists has diverged.  If they are ~the same, then I think there's 
little value to the community in a separate list.  If they have diverged 
significantly (FSVO significant), then that's probably a strong sign that the 
separate list is worthwhile.

If there is a difference between the subscriber base for the two lists, I would 
also consider if new ietf@ subscribers in the period are appropriately 
represented in the last call list (if they aren't, that may be a problem).  
One risk of a segregated list is it makes participating in the community wide 
last call discussions somewhat less discoverable for newcomers.

I believe such an assessment would be more in the IETF tradition than a poll 
on ietf@ (which also leaves out the people who unsubscribed from ietf@ because 
they were only here for the last calls and they like the change).

Scott K

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:15:28 -0400

(I'm replying to this and adding the last-call list, which I forgot to
do when I sent it.  Please reply to *this* message, to keep both lists
included.)

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:21:32 +0000

I like it but since I'm not on the last-call list (I prefer the raw unmitigated "stuff" of [email-masked]), not sure my opinion matters much.
Are discussions bifurcated much? I guess also I don't care, the current scheme works okay for me, and isn't that all that matters?

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:22:16 -0400

> On Apr 30, 2020, at 11:15 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Apr 2020 11:22:31 -0400

In article <1940862.1TzVfGZulW@sk-desktop> you write:
>for the two lists has diverged. ...

I sort mail from different lists into different mailboxes so in this
case I can see the likely useful stuff on last-call before the chatter
on ietf.  Separate lists can be very useful even if the subscribers
are identical.

So I'd give it a 4.

R"s,
John

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:23:30 -0500

I give it a 4.5.

I see last call comments on a much more timely basis than I did with all the background noise the IETF list. (Note that I saw _this_ message on the Last-Call list first.) I think it makes a lot of sense to separate the effort of getting the day-to-day work of the IETF done from the broad range of discussions _about_ the IETF.

Ben.

> On Apr 30, 2020, at 10:15 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 16:25:23 +0100

(In fact, I unsubscribed from [email-masked])

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:33:01 -0700

4, Please keep it. However, I think it could be improved if you also sent
LC *announcements* there.

-Ekr

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:30 AM Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I give it a 4.5.
>
> I see last call comments on a much more timely basis than I did with all
> the background noise the IETF list. (Note that I saw _this_ message on the
> Last-Call list first.) I think it makes a lot of sense to separate the
> effort of getting the day-to-day work of the IETF done from the broad range
> of discussions _about_ the IETF.
>
> Ben.
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:38:18 -0400

> 4, Please keep it. However, I think it could be improved if you also sent LC *announcements* there.

We have talked about CCing the last call announcements to the
last-call list.  I agree: I think we should.

Barry

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:41:05 -0400

4.

---

From: Joseph Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:44:09 -0700

1, for the reasons Barry just showed below. (Thanks, BTW).

A person with one watch always knows what time it is. A person with two is never sure.

Joe

> On Apr 30, 2020, at 8:15 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:43:56 -0500

4 is about right, and +1 to EKR's idea.

pr

On 30 Apr 2020, at 10:33, Eric Rescorla wrote:

>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Barry Leiba 
>>> <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>>>

-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 16:50:00 +0100

5

> On 30 Apr 2020, at 16:00, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:52:30 -0400

2.   Strongly agree with Scott Kitterman's comments about
looking at subscription (and posting) breakdowns and statistics
as being more useful than polling and about the risk of making
it more difficult for newcomers to figure out what is going on.
I'd add that anyone who does significant automated local
filtering or classification could do a 90% job by looking at
"[Last Call]" in subject lines (as I have done for years) -- no
separate list needed.

Possibly the effort to create separate lists could be better
spent pushing back on interminable discussions on the IETF list
about, e.g., subjects that are not IETF problems.

I expect I'm in  the rough here, but still...

best,
   john

--On Thursday, April 30, 2020 11:15 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> (I'm replying to this and adding the last-call list, which I
> forgot to do when I sent it.  Please reply to *this* message,
> to keep both lists included.)
> 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> It's been around six months since we started the
>> <[email-masked]> list, and we said that we would evaluate
>> the results after six months. To that end, the IESG would
>> like to see comments about how it's been working.
>> 
>> Please respond to this thread to comment.  It would be
>> helpful if the first line of your comment gave a succinct
>> view of your opinion on the following 5-to-1 scale:
>> 
>> 2: I don't like it, but I can live with it if we decide to
>> keep it. 1: It's terrible!  Please, please go back to the old
>> way!

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:56:59 +0200

5: Perfect, I Don't even think about going back.

More easy to work, trace and follow. However, it is good to have both as
well, so one highly formal Last-Call-List, and the other IETF-list can mix.

Best Regards
AB

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:15:38 -0400

+1 (both for the rating and the CCing).

---

From: "tom petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 18:29:25 +0100

2

It would be higher if the Last Call announcements appeared on it (as I proposed ages ago:-)

There is also a problem with timing that some reviews take place before a formal Last Call and those reviews get posted to Last Call - there should be a gate stopping those reviews if no Last Call has been issued. I am unclear if the various directorate etc reviews belong here or not.

---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
https://www.oeclassic.com/

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: Barry Leiba [email-masked]
Sent: 30/04/2020 16:38:18
______________________________________________________________________________

> , Please keep it. However, I think it could be improved if you also sent LC *announcements* there.

Barry

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 09:29:31 -0700 (PDT)

4, and +1 to cc'ing last calls.

Having to deal with Slack has not enamoured me to other people deciding how to
separate things by topic, but there's real utility in this separation - more
than I expected.

				Ned

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:37:42 -0500

Solid 5 from me.

It's not so much the difference in the signal-to-noise ratio; it's that 
the signal is a very, very different kind of topic, and the ability to 
reliably and automatically separate them so that I can handle them 
differently is invaluable.

/a

---

From: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:47:58 -0400

5.

I utilize last-call and am no longer subscribed to ietf@ - the signal is
much better. Indeed its so obviously better I wouldn't go back if that were
the only choice.

---

From: Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 09:57:54 -0700

4 - it’s a useful distinction to help highlight and sort out last calls, which ought to be timely and not drowned out. 

Tommy

> On Apr 30, 2020, at 8:02 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 13:08:12 -0400

I have mixed feelings about this.

I am all for having a way to reduce the amount of email that I received 
and that I don't care about, and the vast majority of Last Calls that 
IETF has these days are not things I am likely to want to dig into.   
But separating the Last Call list from the IETF list doesn't really help 
that.   What I'd like is a way to subscribe to Last Calls in specific 
areas or working groups.   Or if the announcements had a bit of extra 
metadata attached to the messages, e.g. working group name and area, I 
could use SIEVE to show me only the last call announcements that I care 
about.   Then having a separate last call list would become beneficial 
at least for those who could use SIEVE (admittedly, and sadly, probably 
a small fraction of IETF).

It also bothers me that the conversation around a particular last call 
(other that private feedback) isn't all in some place that people can 
easily read it and contribute to it.

There also seems to be a disturbing trend toward over-fragmentation of 
the IETF community conversation, for instance the now-common admonition 
to move nearly every substantive discussion of potentially-broad 
community interest to a separate narrowly-focused list to which one has 
to explicitly subscribe.   I do not think this serves IETF's interests, 
and I think it too often serves to hide issues which should have wider 
exposure.   Separating last call announcements is probably among the 
least of the factors contributing to that over-fragmentation, but I 
think it nonetheless contributes to the problem.

For the most part it doesn't bother me to not have last call 
announcements cluttering up the conversation on the ietf list... except 
that sometimes those conversations do need community-wide attention.

Looking through my lastcall mail folder, what I see is that it's hard to 
find the Last Call announcements for all of the area directorate reviews 
that have been posted (with different subjects, and without links to the 
drafts being reviewed).   IMO the list would be MUCH more valuable if it 
could arrange to group all of the traffic for any given Last Call 
together.   The most likely way to make this work with most mail user 
agents is for all of those reviews to use the same Subject field as the 
original announcement, and for all of those reviews to be replies to the 
original announcement.   (Yes, it's sad that too few MUAs have effective 
searching.)

If I had to assign a number to the current implementation, I'd probably 
give it a 1.5, but slight changes could make it a 4 or better.

What I'd really like to see is some more thought put into the question 
"How do we make it more likely that Last Calls (not just the 
announcements) get the attention they deserve?"   I think it's possible 
that one effect of putting last call announcements on a separate list, 
is that Last Calls now get even less attention than before.

Keith

---

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 13:20:52 -0400

> On Apr 30, 2020, at 1:08 PM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I am all for having a way to reduce the amount of email that I received and that I don't care about, and the vast majority of Last Calls that IETF has these days are not things I am likely to want to dig into.   But separating the Last Call list from the IETF list doesn't really help that.   What I'd like is a way to subscribe to Last Calls in specific areas or working groups.   Or if the announcements had a bit of extra metadata attached to the messages, e.g. working group name and area, I could use SIEVE to show me only the last call announcements that I care about.   Then having a separate last call list would become beneficial at least for those who could use SIEVE (admittedly, and sadly, probably a small fraction of IETF).

Area metadata as a way to filter seems useful to me as well (the draft name usually has the WG in it).

Thanks,
Chris.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 13:26:04 -0400

> Area metadata as a way to filter seems useful to me as well (the draft name usually has the WG in it).

Yes, but explicit metadata would be better than heuristics.

Also, of course, some Last Calls aren't for WG documents, and it would 
be nice to be able to classify those also.

Keith

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:33:54 -0500

+1 to Eric’s point about the announcements.

> On Apr 30, 2020, at 10:33 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:30 AM Ben Campbell <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> I give it a 4.5.
> 
> > On Apr 30, 2020, at 10:15 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Barry Leiba <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> >> 
> >> It's been around six months since we started the <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>
>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:36:55 -0700

4 for me.  I could live with it going back, but I prefer this mode.

regards,

Ted

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 13:39:56 -0400

3

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: "Job Snijders" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:00:51 +0200

Dear all,

> > please, in the next couple of weeks, by 15 May.  Thanks!

4

It feels like another layer of the [email-masked] onion has been peeled off. As our understanding of what the IETF is evolves, it seems we've now recognised there are conversations on different planes, and it also seems there is no apparent downside to  separating some off to last-call@. I suspect adoption of last-call@ will continue to grow a bit if the change is made permanent.

It is likely at times discussions still will froth over from one list to another, but if this new list-setup helps us *most of the time*, I'd say that is a win. :-)

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Dave Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:43:38 -0400

4, but only because I'm ridiculously pedantic about "perfect".  

I also usually decline to participate in those business surveys that
say, "Anything less than 10 is failure!", with 10 meaning, "Greatly
exceeded expectations."  I asked you to change my oil.  You changed my
oil.  You have exactly met my expectations and I'm satisfied.  Can't
we please just leave it at that?

Anyway, right, please don't take last-call away from us.

---

From: "Christopher Wood" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:58:08 -0700

4. I find it substantially easier to track relevant discussions on last-call@ than on ietf@.

Best,
Chris

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:32:25 +0100

I prefer it when emails are not cross-posted to multiple lists.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 08:32:50 +1200

Barry,

> 3: Neutral: I don't care either way.

It has made no difference to me, since I have sorted last call mail into a separate inbox for years anyway. What I can't judge is whether it has made any difference to the amount and quality of last call comments.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 08:48:44 +1200

> 4, Please keep it. However, I think it could be improved if you also sent LC *announcements* there.

I hope you mean to Cc: them there. The main announcement should definitely be sent to ietf-announce, the one list that every IETF participant needs to be subscribed to. This is a specific requirement in RFC2026 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#page-19).

   Brian

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:17:33 -0400

My thoughts exactly.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:39 AM Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> > last-call@ietf..org <[email-masked]>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:29:43 -0700

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:48 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I hope you mean to Cc: them there. The main announcement should definitely
> be sent to ietf-announce, the one list that every IETF participant needs to
> be subscribed to. This is a specific requirement in RFC2026 (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#page-19).
>

I definitely think they should be sent to both places. I take no position
on how it's done technically

-Ekr

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:40:04 -0400

> I hope you mean to Cc: them there.

Of course; if we do that, it will be with CC.

Barry

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:10:39 -0700

Hi Keith,

I find myself confused by some of the things herein, so I'll try to adopt
the strategy of "summarize what I am hearing and then respond to the
summary" as needed.

> a small fraction of IETF).

That seems clear to me, and worth pursuing.

> easily read it and contribute to it.

I'm not sure in what way this is the case; it sounds to me like you are
saying that the last-call disucssion of a particular document is fragmented
across many places in the current experiment's setup.  I honestly am not
sure what those places would be (that is to say, I have been assuming that
last-call@ captures all of it), since the directorate reviews sent via the
datatracker go to all three of the WG list, last-call@, and the directorate
list, and the last-call announcements set reply-to to last-call@.  While I
have occasionally seen directorate review threads that drop one or two of
the lists, it is in my experience the exception, so I'd like to learn more
about how your perception differs from mine.

> exposure.   Separating last call announcements is probably among the 

I think I understand your point here and sympathize that forcing a
discussion to split off from its current forum can result in the subsequent
discussion occurring among a too-narrow group of participants that does not
reach a conclusion reflective of the broader community's interests.  But it
doesn't always do so, and there are many factors to be balanced in
analyzing what's best; I'm not sure that this current thread about the
particular ongoing experiment with last-call@ is the right place to get
into the broader discussion.

> think it nonetheless contributes to the problem.

Here you say "separating last call announcements", which confuses me.  In
what way are the *announcements* separated; my understanding is that they
continue to go to ietf-announce@, unchanged by the current experiment.

> that sometimes those conversations do need community-wide attention.

Again, the announcements should be going to ietf-announce@, so I'm not sure
how the ietf list comes in.

> drafts being reviewed).   IMO the list would be MUCH more valuable if it 

I see you saying that directorate review mails are being sent with
inconsistent subject lines and without links to the drafts.
My understanding is that the directorate secretaries are pushing reviewers
to have the datatracker send the review mail, which standardizes on the
message format and subject line (though apparently does not specifically
include a link to the document, which should be easy to rectify; please
feel free to file a ticket).  So I'd be interested in knowing what
timescale your search spanned, and especially (though I acknowledge this is
not a trivial request) how the distribution has changed over time.

> original announcement.   (Yes, it's sad that too few MUAs have effective 

Agreed that using a common subject line (or substring?) seems cheap and
effective.  I do wonder if it is useful to call out directorate reviews
and/or provide other ways to distinguish different reviewers' threads for the
same document, hence my suggestion of substring vs. full subject match.

> give it a 1.5, but slight changes could make it a 4 or better.

I don't have a great sense for which of the potential changes discussed in
this thread would be needed to make it a 4 in your view.  (I'm not going to
hazard a guess, either, since I'd expect to be wrong.)

> is that Last Calls now get even less attention than before.

I agree that the question of getting last calls more attention is
important.  But once again, I request clarity on the specifics of "the
announcements" which, AFAIK, are only changed by this current experiment in
the form of the "reply-to" setting.

Thanks,

Ben

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:04:59 -0700

Hi Barry,
>first line of your comment gave a succinct view of your opinion on the

I choose 3.

I asked a question [1] about the planned experiment in September 
2019.  Nobody from the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) 
commented on it.  I would prefer if the IESG provided some input 
about the results of the experiment instead the current approach.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L0k7JbcSzrrKvGnbS0i_Ouurq5s/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 18:45:14 -0400

On 4/30/20 6:10 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> across many places in the current experiment's setup.
Yes that's what I'm saying, though not entirely because of the current 
experiment.  This is a problem that has existed for decades, it's just 
that the current experiment makes it a bit worse.
> I honestly am not

I'm not specifically concerned about the directorate threads, I'm 
concerned about all Last Call comments.   I think responses from 
directorate members should get exactly the same exposure, be forwarded 
to the same lists, etc. as Last Call comments from anyone else.

> into the broader discussion.
I agree with that; but it is one of my observations about the current 
experiment and one of my reservations about making it permanent in its 
current form.
> continue to go to ietf-announce@, unchanged by the current experiment.
Yes, I was slightly confused there.   Announcements go to ietf-announce 
(IMO they should to go lastcall also), and the reviews/responses go all 
over the place.
> how the ietf list comes in.
I should have said "last call conversations" or something similar.
> inconsistent subject lines and without links to the drafts.

Not quite; I'm concerned that it's difficult to get a sense of the 
spectrum of support and/or concerns expressed in a Last Call.   The 
announcement goes to ietf-announce, some of the reviews go to lastcall, 
some of the reviews go elsewhere.   Why wouldn't we want them to all 
show up and be reviewable in one place?

A related concern is that there are so many messages sent to lastcall 
that there's no good way to even find the responses that are sent there.

> not a trivial request) how the distribution has changed over time.

I haven't tried to continuously review this over time, just whenever I 
wanted to follow a particular Last Call.

> hazard a guess, either, since I'd expect to be wrong.)
I suspect I need to write up a strawman proposal that nails down some 
details, because slight differences in implementation would make large 
differences in participant experience.

Keith

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 08:59:17 +1000

Unsurprisingly, I like it. Based on the criteria you give, I'd say 4; it's not perfect (others have already suggested interesting improvements), but it's substantially better than what was before, and we shouldn't go back.

Cheers,

> On 1 May 2020, at 1:15 am, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:12:34 -0400

Keith, why do you say that last call comments are going all over the 
place.  The last call announcement sets reply-to to the last-call list. 
So unless people deliberately change it, that is where those comments go.

Directorate reviews are generally set to go to the last call list, and 
sometimes to the WG as well (as well as to the directorate).

So what fragmentation related to the experiment is causing you 
confusion.   Are people deliberately moving the last call discussions to 
ietf@?  (I could easily not have noticed, but I do not recall seeing 
that.)  If so, we probably should find out why.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 16:22:02 -0700

> 4: I really like it and want to keep it.

4 or 5. Only saw this poll by chance.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 18:25:07 -0700

> 1: It's terrible!  Please, please go back to the old way!

0: as i am subscribed to both and filter them both into the same bucket,
i did not notice, thank ghu

i did not nead yet another mailing list.  and i use a mail reader with
thread delete.

randy

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 11:08:10 +0800

Barry, IESG,

I'm neutral, either way works for me.

/Loa

-- 

My mail server it under a DOS attack, we are working to fix it but it
may take some time.

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:57:37 -0600

> 4: I really like it and want to keep it.

4 - For the ones where I just want to see the outcome, it is great and saves me a lot of time.

-- 
Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US) [email-masked] 714-989-6135

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2020 14:56:51 +1000

On Fri, May 1, 2020, at 01:15, Barry Leiba wrote: ...
4: I can't see how this could be anything but an improvement.