[rfc-i] Mailing lists overlap - merge them ?
Mark Nottingham
mnot at mnot.net
Mon Feb 8 15:11:06 PST 2021
Hi Roger,
I suspect that there's still a need for tools-discuss, because there are other tools.
However, it'd be *great* if we were more rigorous about moving discussions to the appropriate venue. In particular, if I care about the XMLv3 format but not about the xml2rfc tool (which is *one* implementation of it), I should be able to subscribe only to the rfc-interest list to see relevant discussion.
Cheers,
> On 9 Feb 2021, at 2:57 am, Roger Price <roger at rogerprice.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2021, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
>> On 2021-02-08, at 10:36, Roger Price <roger at rogerprice.org> wrote:
>>> If the lists are not to be merged, then they are to be clearly separated.
>>
>> +-----------------------+
>> | |
>> | rfc-interest |
>> | |
>> | |
>> | |
>> | |
>> | ...............|..
>> | : tools-discuss| :
>> | ,------------------, | :
>> | | : | | :
>> | | : | | :
>> | | : | | :
>> +--+------------------+-+ :
>> | : | :
>> | : | :
>> | -------------|----
>> | xml2rfc, |
>> | xml2rfc-dev |
>> '------------------'
>>
>>
>> Exercise for the reader: Please disentangle!
>
> If the truth were known, I suspect that the diagram would show that the
> tools-discuss readership is almost entirely covered by rfc-interest and xml2rfc.
>
> rfc-interest already excludes the IETF standards process and general IETF organizational issues. If it also sent the technicians to xml2rfc for technical questions, then tools-discuss could be retired, and there would be little need for double posting.
>
> Roger
>
> (Figure stolen from Carsten and adapted.)
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
More information about the rfc-interest
mailing list