Subject: Best tool to cut posts 6.25 inches square x 96 inches

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:43:20 -0400

Base of the TARDIS and the sign boards are both half done.

So now I come across a problem that nobody in the tardis-building
community has (yet) come to a good answer to, how to trim the posts
down to exact size.

They are 8' long ( a bit longer actually, that being the problem) and
made of 4 planks of 5 1/2 x 3/4 pine.  So they are heavy. Its at the
limit of a one person lift and certainly too big to handle on a table
saw.

Chop saw? Well too big for my 12" chop saw and a slide does not help here.

I am thinking I probably need to make a jig and use a circular saw.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:47:11 -0800

> I am thinking I probably need to make a jig and use a circular saw.

We usually use a chainsaw for similar circumstances.

Melinda

---

From: Chris Elliott <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:02:17 -0400

> We usually use a chainsaw for similar circumstances.

For a cleaner cut, there are circular saws with 9 and 10" blades:

http://www.lowes.com/pd_150698-29990-STEELSAW9_4294607775__?productId=3349636&Ns=p_product_price|1&pl=1&currentURL=%3FNs%3Dp_product_price%7C1%26page%3D1&facetInfo=

Or a portable bandsaw:

http://m.harborfreight.com/portable-variable-speed-bandsaw-47840.html

Or, the one I have, a Sawzall (reciprocating saw) with a long enough
blade--9" should do either way. The taller the blade the cleaner and
straighter the cut.

Enjoy!
Chris.

Melinda

-- 
Chris Elliott
CCIE # 2013

“You and I are mirages that perceive themselves”
--Douglas Hofstadter

---

From: Chris Elliott <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:05:36 -0400

Ok--so I misunderstood the post design. The Sawzall will still work and
will cut cleaner than a chainsaw. But, then, use the tool that's easiest to
 get ahold of.

Chris.

On Monday, August 11, 2014, Chris Elliott <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Monday, August 11, 2014, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> wrote:
>
> <http://www.lowes.com/pd_150698-29990-STEELSAW9_4294607775__?productId=3349636&Ns=p_product_price%7C1&pl=1&currentURL=%3FNs%3Dp_product_price%7C1%26page%3D1&facetInfo=>
>
> Or a portable bandsaw:
>

-- 
Chris Elliott
CCIE # 2013

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:09:23 -0800

> blade--9" should do either way. The taller the blade the cleaner and

I've cut dense pieces of wood with a sawzall frankly have had much
better (cleaner) results with a chainsaw (love the sawzall for cutting
metal, though).  A chainsaw will waste about 1/4" of wood, but
presumably you're cutting it off because you don't need it, anyway.

Any chainsaw dealer should carry a cheap guide to help you get square
cuts.

Melinda

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:51:06 -0400

Use a quick square to mark layout lines at the cutoff point minus the distance between the circular saw blade and the edge of the saw.   Adjust your circular saw to a depth of about an inch.  Clamp the quick square down to the post on one side lined up with the layout line.  Run the circular saw across the post using the quick square edge as a guide.  Rotate the post 90 degrees and repeat.  Do that twice more.   

No need for a jig ( or chainsaw).  I assume this is a hollow post given your dimensions and material list.  

Mike

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 11, 2014, at 22:43, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:32:19 +0000

> I am thinking I probably need to make a jig and use a circular saw.

I would use a table saw and a jointer. Used to work in a furniture factory, and that’s how we did it.

it being 8 feet long, this is a job for two people

First, run one side over the jointer to make a flat side. You can use a table saw for this with the right jig. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtSoo1AaBDo is inexpensive; I don’t like how close he got his hand to the blade (says the guy with a short finger). I like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKDxKb-B0sQ better, but it’s going to mean you have (from somewhere) an 8 foot long perfectly straight board to run down the guide. Probably means a piece of plywood.

Second, set up a guide the prescribed distance from the table saw blade. Make sure you have some other stick you can use to push the board through. Put the flat jointed side against the guide and the rough side on the other side of the blade. Push slowly past the blade, and pull from the other.

You can then rotate the board 90’ and repeat the second step. That makes it square.

There is value in having a second stick that looks something like a table fork but perhaps three feet long. Use that to push the board against the guide. You’d rather have the blade hit that than your fingers, and it keeps the board from migrating out.

---

From: Chris Elliott <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:40:00 -0400

I'm going to go the other way from Fred and recommend an axe. You can chop
down redwoods with an axe, surely you could cut a bit off a tiny ~6" square
hollow log...

OK--if you don't like that, how about a regular old manual, non-electric
saw? Actually would do a great job in the right hands. If you have a friend
you can use one with two handles.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email-masked]> wrote:

> First, run one side over the jointer to make a flat side. You can use a
> table saw for this with the right jig.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtSoo1AaBDo is inexpensive; I don’t like
> how close he got his hand to the blade (says the guy with a short finger).
> I like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKDxKb-B0sQ better, but it’s going
> to mean you have (from somewhere) an 8 foot long perfectly straight board
> to run down the guide. Probably means a piece of plywood.
>
> Second, set up a guide the prescribed distance from the table saw blade.
> Make sure you have some other stick you can use to push the board through.
> Put the flat jointed side against the guide and the rough side on the other
> side of the blade. Push slowly past the blade, and pull from the other.
>
> There is value in having a second stick that looks something like a table
> fork but perhaps three feet long. Use that to push the board against the
> guide. You’d rather have the blade hit that than your fingers, and it keeps
> the board from migrating out.
>

-- 
Chris Elliott
[email-masked]

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:07:33 +0000

> I'm going to go the other way from Fred and recommend an axe. > You can chop down redwoods with an axe, surely you could cut a > bit off a tiny ~6" square hollow log...
>
> OK--if you don't like that, how about a regular old manual, non-
> electric saw? Actually would do a great job in the right hands. If 
> you have a friend you can use one with two handles.

Are you guys building a bike-shed?

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 01:13:12 -0400

> Are you guys building a bike-shed?

Yes, but it's a special one that's bigger on the inside...

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 17:13:43 +1200

> Are you guys building a bike-shed?

I believe it's a troll hut. Wikipedia states that "the most dangerous
trolls live in lonely huts in the forest."

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:22:30 -0800

> Yes, but it's a special one that's bigger on the inside...

And ... we're done here.

Melinda

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:57:29 -0500

>> Yes, but it's a special one that's bigger on the inside...

And to think I've resisted subscribing to _this_ list for so long.  I
never knew what I was missing!

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 06:10:21 -0400

We just lost another 10% (?) from this list. At Plenary in Toronto several folks admitted to unsubscribing years ago from this list. Without judging whether or not the community needs a list for all the varied discussions that take place here, isn't it time for a Last Call list?

Ray

> On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:57 AM, Nico Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:11:10 +0000

there's probably a discussion to be had on the interplay of process and culture.

a last call list can be purely process, without establishing/introducing societal norms and conventions, while this list can be an education and fill a broader role (end2end-interest used to fill a lot of that educational role, way back when).

L.

________________________________________
From: ietf <[email-masked]> on behalf of Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 8:10:21 PM
To: Nico Williams
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Last Call List was Re: Best tool to cut posts 6.25 inches square x 96 inches

Ray

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:17:17 +0100

Ray,

On 12/08/14 11:10, Ray Pelletier wrote:
> We just lost another 10% (?) from this list. At Plenary in Toronto
> several folks admitted to unsubscribing years ago from this list.
> Without judging whether or not the community needs a list for all the
> varied discussions that take place here, isn't it time for a Last
> Call list?

FWIW, I'm not convinced. Those already go to IETF-announce and
I bet a LC-discuss list would have all the same issues. I also
think there's a bunch of folks who'd object and haven't seen
their objections discussed, but I could be wrong there.

Adding the #subscribers to the Narten numbers might be useful
though so we could see the evolution of list-size.

S.

>>>>> On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:07 AM, Christian Huitema
>>>>> <[email-masked]> wrote: Are you guys building a
>>>>> bike-shed?
>> And to think I've resisted subscribing to _this_ list for so long.
>> I never knew what I was missing!
>> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:32:28 -0700

> though so we could see the evolution of list-size.

I've been resistant to a separate list, primarily because the benefit of
the IETF-wide last call process is broad and frankly accidental review.
 Unexpected folk looking at a document can find unexpected issues.  This
is goodness, IMO.  A separate list would be expected to have much
smaller and narrower participation and thereby reduce that benefit of
happenstance review.

However this IETF list mixes many topics, including one of serious
review.  Worse, the lack of discipline in the conduct of discussions on
the IETF list ensures very poor signal-to-noise.  And having its
membership drop off precipitously certainly undermines any expectation
of broad review...

If a separate list were created with an explicit charter to be for
review comments and discussion only, and if the list were operated with
explicit and active management to ensure discussion focus, tracking of
issues, and the rest of what is needed to create a serious tone of
serious discussion, then it well might be able to achieve meaningful
improvement over what we have now.  This would mean explicitly declaring
who the facilitator is for each review request.  (I doubt it is viable
to have a single person do it for all reviews.)

d/

ps.  Reviews are not only for document last calls.  we have some other
items (charters?) that have comments solicitied.  Whatever the list is
called and whatever is written into its charter, it should be careful to
state what is in scope and what is out.  And announcement notes should
be careful to point to the alternative list.

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:52:42 +0200

Dave,

> to have a single person do it for all reviews.)

My only problem with this sadly seems more theoretical than actual: the
IETF list used to be the one common discussion point that participants
shared, where serious architectural issues could be discussed.  And it's
not like that hasn't happened this year.  See the debate about dmarc,
for instance.

But people do need to exercise self-control.  I had thought that was
what the IESG proposal was all about, really: helping people to
recognize when they need to take a step back.  If this list is to be
taken seriously by serious people then people need to be have in a
serious manner towards it.

Eliot

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:14:06 +0000

Usually (in my experience - opinions may differ) the best way to keep serious and not so serious things apart is to have a list for the non-serious stuff. Then if it pops up on the serious list you can ask it to go where it belongs, which is easier than just demanding it goes away entirely. And while non-serious, such lists can help produce a sense of community - among those who want in to it. While those wanting to just be serious can do that.

But apart from that, this list seems to do three jobs, discussing procedural things, protocols etc., and travel/meeting things. Yes of course there are overlaps, but if they were separated then people could just opt in to whichever made sense to them. Just protocols for example. (Of course maybe I've missed something and that three-way split isn't the best. That's a detail - for the procedural part of the list.)

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Information Assurance Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
[email-masked] | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: 12 August 2014 13:53
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: value of this list

Dave,

On 8/12/14, 2:32 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> I've been resistant to a separate list, primarily because the benefit 
> of the IETF-wide last call process is broad and frankly accidental review.
>  Unexpected folk looking at a document can find unexpected issues.  
> This is goodness, IMO.  A separate list would be expected to have much 
> review.  Worse, the lack of discipline in the conduct of discussions 
> on the IETF list ensures very poor signal-to-noise.  And having its 
> review comments and discussion only, and if the list were operated 
> with explicit and active management to ensure discussion focus, 
> tracking of issues, and the rest of what is needed to create a serious 
> tone of serious discussion, then it well might be able to achieve 
> meaningful improvement over what we have now.  This would mean 
> explicitly declaring who the facilitator is for each review request.  
> (I doubt it is viable to have a single person do it for all reviews.)

My only problem with this sadly seems more theoretical than actual: the IETF list used to be the one common discussion point that participants shared, where serious architectural issues could be discussed.  And it's not like that hasn't happened this year.  See the debate about dmarc, for instance.

But people do need to exercise self-control.  I had thought that was what the IESG proposal was all about, really: helping people to recognize when they need to take a step back.  If this list is to be taken seriously by serious people then people need to be have in a serious manner towards it.

Eliot

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:30:15 -0400

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think this is something needed for all of our lists, not just the IETF
list.  Good communication practices will go a long way towards improved
results from discussions.  It seems many of us forget that list traffic
goes to a very large number of people and paying attention to how we
communicate can go a long way.

Many of us are very good about keeping the discussion of topics on the
right list (maybe a separate list is a good idea), but we fail in other
areas such as:
1. Considering the large number of readers when posting and the impact of
time on those readers.  This means, make sure your messages are concise,
but have the appropriate context to prevent the need for extended dialogs.
2. Don't repeat yourself, +1 is fine to agree with others.  If you stated a
position and didn't change it, we know you didn't come around to the other
point of view being stated.
3. Make sure there is some purpose to your message (again, impact).

There are a bunch of good email practices blogs out there, so I looked a a
couple.  Here are tidbits from this one that I think apply to our lists:
http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2007/10/23/the-7-bad-e-mail-habits-that-make-people-want-to-kill-you/

Avoid buried requests. "A buried request is where the question or
actionable information is sandwiched between unimportant info."

"Don’t try to be witty or sarcastic in an e-mail and pretend as if
everything you say will be taken literally. Although a few metaphors can
come across well in an e-mail, most don’t."

"People don’t read e-mails, they skim. So don’t write an eight sentence
paragraph in one chunk."

>From the following article, #1, #2, and #3 apply in some cases as well:
http://www.mergedcomms.com/5-communication-habits-break/
3.  Constant negativity is not needed (see description for full information
before you blast me)
2. Not listening (For us, this could mean taking time to cool off before
responding.  Email wasn't meant to be real-time, no one should expect an
immediate response.)
1. Emailing everything.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:32:13 -0400

> though so we could see the evolution of list-size.

Can someone please remind me what problem exactly we are trying to solve?

Do we really think that the volume of LC comments are so large that
folk don't participate on -discuss? That there is so much faff on
discuss that folk cannot see the LC discussions?

There is significant value in having a general discussion list -- we
are, in theory, a community -- part of being part of a community
involves knowing the other folk, and building a shared ethos. -discuss
is, IMO, the closest we have to that. Things like PHB's Tardis
discussion didn't hurt anyone, and provided A: some education, B: some
chuckles, and C: an understanding of some other folks interests.

Having a separate list for LC seem to me like it will simply end up as
a bit bucket -- if I missed discussions of a draft in a working group,
and I missed it on IETF-announce, I'm not magically going to see and
care on LC-discuss... and, if I do, my comments are not likely to be
useful / relevant[0]. If anyone does subscribe to a LC-discuss list
(because, y' know, filters on IETF-announce are too hard?), I suspect
it will simply end up trolling -- having someone pop out of the
woodwork and ask "Why did you choose to do X in this way? Y is
better..." without having followed the WG discussion is simply not
useful.
If they actually care / have a valid opinion they should have been
involved in the WG discussion, or seen the IETF-announce thread.

Let's not fall into the trap of judging our value by a: how many
people come to a physical meeting or b: are members of a mailing list
- these are not useful metrics.

W
[0]: Colin Doyle (one of the people in the NOC) made me my current
favorite IETF shirt -- it says "Your comments are neither interesting
nor relevant, but at least they provide no new information".

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:22:21 -0400

+1

While I enjoy the periodic 'this list needs fixing' discussions, I am
always happy when the list remains as it is.[0]

avri

[0] Colin is always right.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:08:57 -0500

> We just lost another 10% (?) from this list. At Plenary in Toronto several folks admitted to unsubscribing years ago from this list. Without judging whether or not the community needs a list for al…

To be fair, if one is to subscribe to the TLS WG list, might as well
subscribe to this DDoS too.

More seriously, I have no problem "filtering" out (I don't mean MUA
filters) things I don't want to pay attention to.  Maybe that's just
me, but maybe that's just fine to expect.

Serious proposal:

 - cleave this list in two, but all subscribers to one will be made
subscribers to the other

 - one list for IETF LC, the other for any other business

People who want to filter the AOB content, will filter the AOB list.
Personally I think that's likely to greatly reduce liveliness on the
AOB list, but hopefully not enough to also kill liveliness on the LC
list.  What if it does?

 - all subscribers to any other IETF WG lists (and maybe others as
well) get to post to the IETF LC and ABO lists without having to
subscribe.

The last point is important: before subscribing to this list I could
only participate when threads were CC'ed to lists I was on (very
likely, since I'm on so many), but my responses required moderator
approval to make it onto this list.  WAT?  Talk about sadistic
incentives: subscribe and suffer or else.  I finally subscribed.
After 13 years of holding out.

Nico
--

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:08:54 +0200

It is an interesting subject. The lists in IETF are usually formed by WG,
but for IETF general area, we have no relations between area and lists
because no WGs. IMHO the general area only has one list which is this IETF
list, if there are new ones proposed then we need to link them to the IETF
general area.

I agree that the IETF general area needs to do more work to improve
the list "value" and to reorganise its individual/WG works processes. I
support totally Dave's proposals.

AB

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:14:32 -0400

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 06:08:54PM +0200, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> IMHO the general area only has one list which is this IETF
> list

I think you're mistaken about that.  For instance, the IANAPLAN BoF
was in the general area, and the associated list is too.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:16:36 -0400

At 08:52 AM 8/12/2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>  If this list is to be

Hi Elliot - 

There's this element of shared cultural that I think you're missing.  We've got 40+ years of a developed IETF culture (yup - starting pre-IETF and pre-Internet) and the general discussion style on [email-masked] is really formed from that culture.  I'm not writing on that list for the outsiders and I don't really need it to be any more serious than a conversation at the watercooler would be.  We have other lists for that and we moderate some of them for that purpose.

With respect to the list, I note that a substantial amount of the noise comes from people complaining about the noise - the engineering term is feedback.  Sometimes if you can't say anything to the topic of the thread saying nothing is a better choice and THAT is the message I would provide, rather than one of absolute seriousness.

By the way - for PHB's posting:

I answered it because it:

a) Asked an engineering question (admittedly not a network related one)
b) Indicated he had sought help elsewhere first
c) did not insult, denigrate or otherwise disparage anyone
d) was something I had some experience with.

The "Great Shout"  to ask for help - even off topic help -  has been part of the culture going back to usenet and that specific thread was - until the end - substantially less noisy than the thread on the Hilton Hawaiian village construction.

So how about adding to the signup message you get when you subscribe to [email-masked] something like:

"This list is the equivalent of the water cooler discussions you might have in real life at a business.  While the overwhelming majority of the discussions are going to be work related, sometimes you're going to see discussions on how a favorite team did, someone's favorite cake recipe, questions about whether an IETF venue has child care, or how the management isn't addressing our issues as well as other wide ranging topics.  Please keep your discussions civil, avoid personal and cultural insults, avoid taking insult where it isn't obviously offered and avoid denigrating other's choice of topics.  If you're not interested in a topic, please avoid participation in that thread.  N.B. complaining about a topic being off-topic for the list is generally not productive, is generally off-topic both for the list and the thread,  and generally results in feedback noise in the specific topic thread and in the list in general. "

These are my thoughts on what this list is or should be based on more years of reading it than I care to name.  YMMV.

Mike

---

From: Chris Elliott <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:39:38 -0400

+1

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:

> There's this element of shared cultural that I think you're missing.
>  We've got 40+ years of a developed IETF culture (yup - starting pre-IETF
> and pre-Internet) and the general discussion style on [email-masked]
> <javascript:;> is really formed from that culture.  I'm not writing on
> that list for the outsiders and I don't really need it to be any more
> serious than a conversation at the watercooler would be.  We have other
> lists for that and we moderate some of them for that purpose.
>
>
> With respect to the list, I note that a substantial amount of the noise
> comes from people complaining about the noise - the engineering term is
> feedback.  Sometimes if you can't say anything to the topic of the thread
> saying nothing is a better choice and THAT is the message I would provide,
> rather than one of absolute seriousness.
>
> The "Great Shout"  to ask for help - even off topic help -  has been part
> of the culture going back to usenet and that specific thread was - until
> the end - substantially less noisy than the thread on the Hilton Hawaiian
> village construction.
>
> So how about adding to the signup message you get when you subscribe to
> [email-masked] <javascript:;> something like:
>
> "This list is the equivalent of the water cooler discussions you might
> have in real life at a business.  While the overwhelming majority of the
> discussions are going to be work related, sometimes you're going to see
> discussions on how a favorite team did, someone's favorite cake recipe,
> questions about whether an IETF venue has child care, or how the management
> isn't addressing our issues as well as other wide ranging topics.  Please
> keep your discussions civil, avoid personal and cultural insults, avoid
> taking insult where it isn't obviously offered and avoid denigrating
> other's choice of topics.  If you're not interested in a topic, please
> avoid participation in that thread.  N.B. complaining about a topic being
> off-topic for the list is generally not productive, is generally off-topic
> both for the list and the thread,  and generally results in feedback noise
> in the specific topic thread and in the list in general. "
>
>
> These are my thoughts on what this list is or should be based on more
> years of reading it than I care to name.  YMMV.
>
> Mike
>
>
>

-- 
Chris Elliott
CCIE # 2013

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:14:32 +1200

On 13/08/2014 02:32, Warren Kumari wrote:
...
> Can someone please remind me what problem exactly we are trying to solve?

A full-on participant in the IETF will need to stay on this list
and join the last call list, so it isn't about mail volume.

> discuss that folk cannot see the LC discussions?

I filter all messages with "last call" in the subject into a dedicated
inbox, so a dedicated list would be a slight convenience. I don't see
how anybody can manage their IETF mail without aggressive subject-based
filtering or threading.

> chuckles, and C: an understanding of some other folks interests.

Yes. And I also have a filter called "ietf-silly-subj" which I update
whenever a really annoying thread breaks out...

  Brian

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:24:33 -0400

Oh @#(*$%(!!!!

I wondered why nobody at the maker space answered what I thought was a
fairly routine question.

Both lists are called discuss.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:30:57 -0400

> Both lists are called discuss.

... and I think that this was one of the more entertaining and useful
threads on *this* discuss recently.

Mike and Fred's response was particularly helpful as I need to make
something like this (actually I'm trying to make a "table" that hangs
under the "arms" on a treadmill so that I can create my own walking /
standing desk. This might help burn off some of the cookies...

W

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:41:13 -0400

Um would not help avoid that problem.

I am also on a list called 'last call'.