[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
mailing list size
- To: wgchairs@ietf.org
- Subject: mailing list size
- From: Aaron Falk <falk@isi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:45:15 -0800
- In-reply-to: <20030319221640.GJ28989@isi.edu>
- Mail-followup-to: wgchairs@ietf.org
- References: <20030310142512.11794.qmail@web10904.mail.yahoo.com> <20030310073204.343f4b4a.moore@cs.utk.edu> <20030310142512.11794.qmail@web10904.mail.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030310103257.02e4dc98@mail.windriver.com> <20030319221640.GJ28989@isi.edu>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
Attention all wg chairs-
Please send me the current size of your working group mailing list.
I'd prefer a simple message of the form:
dccp 263
I will summarize and post.
Thanks,
--aaron
PS. Please be considerate and DO NOT copy the wgchairs list on your
reply. -af
Aaron Falk wrote:
> In the interests of collecting real data, it might be useful for
> someone to volunteer to collect, from the wg chairs, and post a single
> snapshot of mailing list sizes for all working groups.
>
> --aaron
>
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> >
> > I don't have any numbers on mailing list size, but the IPv6 WG
> > is usually the most heavily attended WG, according to blue sheet
> > signatures. IPv6 usually has 400+ signatures on the blue sheets
> > (with considerably more people than that in the room), while the
> > next largest WGs usually run in the mid-to-high 200s.
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> >
> > At 10:27 AM 3/10/2003 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > >> Is your experience tilted more towards lists that are (1) at the
> > >> application level, and (2) not telephony/SubIP-related?
> > >
> > >yes. apparently I was under the mistaken impression that some of the
> > >apps groups (e.g. those related to web things) were the largest ones
> > >in IETF...
> > >
> > >Keith
> >