Subject: IPPDEV> Re: IPP> Re: IPP developers mailing list established

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 02:51:05 -0500

Peter,

If the main IPP list has a high percentage of non-developers,
the list has serious problems.

Keith

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:53:38 -0500

Keith,

> the list has serious problems.

As of yesterday, the IPP mailing list has 303 subscribers, while
the IPPDEV list has only 38 subscribers.  Clearly these lists are
not duplicates of each other.

I'm not sure what you mean about "serious problems" in your above
statement.  Many, many folks monitor the IPP list for a number of
different reasons, not all having to do with the technology itself.
There are many people, for instance, who monitor the progress of
IPP to better understand and plan for product delivery schedules.
Most of us in the PWG welcome this kind of public observation, even
if it means some of those folks are *marketing* types.  ;-)

As the official list-keepers for the PWG, we here at Underscore
monitor all changes to all PWG-oriented mailing lists.  All too
many times we see folks unsubscribe from the IPP when a sudden
rash of messages are posted that deal with some very fine technical
point.  As Peter Zehler has pointed out in a previous message, we
wish to segregate finely detailed implementation discussions from
the higher-level aspects of IPP.

Hope this approach doesn't give you or the other Area Directors
substantial heartburn.

	...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--  JK Martin               |  Email:   [email-masked]          --
--  Underscore, Inc.        |  Voice:   (603) 889-7000              --
--  41C Sagamore Park Road  |  Fax:     (603) 889-2699              --
--  Hudson, NH 03051-4915   |  Web:     http://www.underscore.com   --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:19:58 -0500

> different reasons, not all having to do with the technology itself.

There's no problem with people monitoring a WG list.
There is a problem if the WG list is deliberately dumbed down
to faciliate such monitoring.  The purpose of the WG list is to do
technical work, and such work is best accomplished when a high
percentage of those doing the work are implementors. 

> point.  

That's a good sign!  The list should be open to anyone, of course,
but most people who aren't interested in doing the work will eventually
get bored and unsubscribe.

Keith