I agree with you John, I also not objecting it but wanted more meaning into the report when I receive it, as I suggested before for clarifications. I don't think majority in IETF think it is meaningless so that is why I want to clarify the meaning and discuss what most may not want to discuss. If this was already discussed could some one point me to a discussion about a weekly post that is done for long and which it may be meaningless by some and understoond the meaning by others. I will add that the report can be misleading, and that I have no intention to write a code for something that is not IETF procedure, but I have intention to clarify such message received each week in IETF that has a lack of information or meaning agreed on.
AB On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:55 PM, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: > > > --On Sunday, August 04, 2013 19:53 +0000 John Levine > <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > >> If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting > >> summary - I strongly object. > > > > As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks > > it's fine. > > I do not want to be recorded as thinking it is fine. If nothing > else, I think was is being reported is meaningless statistically > (which doesn't mean people can't find value in it). However, I > do not object to its being posted as long as it isn't used to > justify personal attacks on individuals for their "ranking". > > It seems to me that isn't quite what you said, rough consensus > or not. > > best, > john > > >
