Subject: [Tools-discuss] last-call list subject lines

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:05:31 -0400

I'm looking on the IMAP for a last-call thread.
The subject mostly say:

  [last-call] FOODIR last call review of draft-ietf-xxx

I wonder if they could be changed to say:

  [last-call] draft-ietf-xxx: FOODIR last call review

(I understand "last call" is repeated, as the email gets cross-posted to
other lists)

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 14:30:38 -0500

Can you say more about why that change would help?

RjS

On 9/28/20 2:05 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>
> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
> or send email to [email-masked]
>
> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues
> or send email to [email-masked]

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:33:03 -0400

> Can you say more about why that change would help?

Sorting by subject would be more useful.

Scanning by eye is easier, particularly since the right-hand
side often gets truncated.

Yes, I can use search in the end, which is what I did.

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:44:58 -0500

> Yes, I can use search in the end, which is what I did.

Right.

Searching would be made a little more difficult were we to change things 
as you suggested (at least with simple string searches).

Right now, you can search for all the reviews on a doc using "review of 
draft-<blah>" or "telechat review of draft-<blah>".

Splitting it as you propose would require two passes (or something that 
does more than simple string matching) to get the second thing.

I see the potential benefit in subject sorting.

I'm not sure its a big enough win to drive a change though - if we were 
to change, future searchers (looking across the period of change) would 
have to search for both things.

Also, for sorting there's the tradeoff against someone that wants to 
sort by type of review or team.

Scanning by eye suffers some of the same tradeoffs. Since group acronyms 
tend to be short, as are the types of review, the form of the line is 
currently mostly static as you scan down - the column breaks move a 
little with a very rough right edge. Moving the draft name to the front 
will make all the column boundaries very rough.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:34:59 -0400

Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> wrote: > Can you say more about
    >> why that change would help?
    >>
    >> Scanning by eye is easier, particularly since the right-hand side
    >> often gets truncated.
    >>

    > Searching would be made a little more difficult were we to change
    > things as you suggested (at least with simple string searches).

    > draft-<blah>" or "telechat review of draft-<blah>".

And I can see how this was a win when ietf@ and last-call@  were combined.
If you look at last-call, "review of" is redundant.  Almost every message
subject contains that string :-)

    > have to search for both things.

Yes, that's a concern.

    > Scanning by eye suffers some of the same tradeoffs. Since group
    > acronyms tend to be short, as are the types of review, the form of the
    > line is currently mostly static as you scan down - the column breaks
    > move a little with a very rough right edge. Moving the draft name to
    > the front will make all the column boundaries very rough.

sure.  I get it in my inbox as well as I look back in the archives with IMAP.
I feel there is a benefit for my inbox too, as I am more likely to notice
things.  I even thought to suggest removing  "draft-", but I didn't.