[Outages-discussion] Outages vs Outages-Discussion

[Jim Popovitch]

On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 19:51 -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> I certainly do not expect replies to my outages@ posts will end up going
> to outages-discussion at .  This is not intuitive.  No mailing list I've
> used for the past 30 years has behaved that way.  Usenet also did not
> behave that way.  Web forums/threads do not behave that way.
> 
> I often refer coworkers and colleagues to outages@ threads (via the
> Mailman archive web interface) when there are reported problems.  To
> tell people "if you want to read the replies to that issue, you'll need
> to visit a different URL of the OTHER list, which is..." is bizarre.
> Nobody will take such a list seriously.
> 
> In summary, I am against the Reply-To recommendation.  That said:
> 
> I am very much in favour of solving the actual problem, which I believe
> is of a social nature.  We should not be trying to solve bad list
> netiquette via technological hoops.  Instead, I suggest direct action by
> list moderators: lecture those who don't understand proper list
> etiquette, and yank the subs of (and blacklist) repeat offenders.
> 
> Yes, the problem we're discussing will keep happening as new people join
> the list (and don't read list rules or follow proper netiquette), but
> that's life.  More than ever today people need reminded of RFC 1855.  Its
> age doesn't matter; much of its content still applies.
> 
> I think the SNR overall on these lists is tolerable, barring outages of
> "major entities" (ex. Google, FB, etc.).  During such times, I expect
> increased noise, albeit briefly (e.g. for the day).

I don't disagree with anything you've stated.  The best way is the way
it technically works now, but with an improved userbase.  BUT, the past
5 years of outages@ has shown that the userbase is unable to improve,
and the list administration is what it is.  So what is the fix?  A
technical one has been proposed, whats the non-technical solution?  

Or, do we just wait for next year to discuss this again?

-Jim P.