[Outages-discussion] List suggestion?

[Grant Taylor]

On 10/7/21 1:14 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
> I would rather not push confirmations to a different list.

I like the idea of some separation between the initial announcement and 
the subsequent discussion.  I agree that a separate list is sub-optimal. 
  But I don't know of anything better.  There might be some Mailman 
feature that we can leverage, but I don't know what that might be, nor 
do I encourage lock-in.

Aside:  In hindsight I might name lists differently with knowledge of a 
discussion list.  E.g. outages-announce / outages-notice for the initial 
message and outages-discussion / outages-replies for the subsequent 
discussion.  But that time has passed.

> The problem with the Facebook outage was that it also impacted 
> this list.

Since this is a /discussion/ mailing list, I feel okay commenting:

Q1 - How was this list impacted by the Facebook outage?
Q2 - Why was this list impacted?
Q3 - What could be done to prevent such impact in the future?

Aside:  I was driving cross country during the Facebook outage, and I 
mostly just considered it something that happened, I was uninvolved, and 
thus largely ignored it.

> Typically you don't have that many me too messages.  Maybe 4 or 5. But 
> because nobody else saw a confirmation, they were just chiming in to 
> confirm. Then when everything got unclogged, the backlog inundated 
> us. This was a one-off. I wouldn't change policy based on this 
> singular issue.

I might not change policy only based on a singular issue.  Though I 
would investigate if changing something might help minimize ~> eliminate 
the impact.  I also feel like the idea of separation of announcement & 
discussion might be larger than just this incident and worth discussing.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4013 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20211007/cef8581d/attachment.p7s>