Re: Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general

[Frank Ellermann]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> There are a couple of arguments consistently used as by the
> pro-ban/anti-filter camp that kind of confuse me

Yes, RfC 3683 can obviously have a very high "troll"-factor.
 
> Since the first PR-Action was only a few months ago

The "last call" ended in December.  IMO both 3934 and 3683 are
mainly of interest for folks with "hats", editors, Chairs, ADs,
because they can't simply filter contributors, at least not as
simply as others without "hats".  Besides I fear their private
inbound is flooded by complaints in the case of conflicts.  So
it's mainly for them that they can ban contributors, and it's
for "us" (TINU) that they can't simply decree whatever pleases
them, but follow some procedures like 3005, 3934, and 3683.

IMHO Sam's / John's / Margaret's proposals are generally better
than RfC 3683.  Hard to judge after only two last calls, but I
know this "excommunication" business from other communities.

IIRC there never was a public 3934 warning on _this_ list, and
if somebody isn't allowed to post on another list for some time
(s)he can simply post here.  As long as it's not excessive this
list is rather harmless, nobody expects that e.g. Brian "must"
read all mails here.

For other lists the folks with "hats" need some way to defend
themselves from side-effects of flamewars hitting their private
inbound, and "we" (TINW) want them to do some more interesting 
things like figure out a way to get "rough consensus" for the
technical issues, or help to find bugs and nits in drafts under
discussion.
  Bye, Frank



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general

[nick . staff]

I'm sorry Frank, your response didn't address any of my questions so maybe there was some missed direction.  Whatever the case I'll restate it in case you want another go at it:
There are a couple of arguments consistently used by the pro-ban/anti-filter camp  that kind of confuse me and maybe someone could explain:
Claim:  The claim that all the good people will leave if the noise level is too great and if stubborn people with limited technical ability aren't banned.
Question:  If that claim is accurate, then since there were no PR-Actions for the first 20 years of the IETF one would have to assume that all the good people left long ago (years and years) and the ones left here now are the ones that drove the good engineers away?
Claim:  Filtering by sender doesn't help because you see all the repsonses to their mail.
Question a:  If the responses are part of the problem then aren't the people who sent them part of the problem as well?  They are equally (probably more disruptive), so why not ban them?  Are they incapable of controlling their responses?  Are they lemmings? 
Question b:  If so many people whose email you don't want to filter are replying to the person that you do, then maybe you are in the minority in thinking their comments aren't worthy of discussion?
Question c:  If so many people whose email you don't want to filter are replying to the person that you do then maybe you're the only one who's filtering them?
Question:  If there was rough consensus on banning someone then if that same rough consensus individually filtered all mail to or from that individual wouldn't the same effect be acheived? Roughly?
Question:  Has no one made a dynamic filter that logs the subject of all email sent from an address and then filters all future email with the same subject, regardless of sender or recipient?
Question  How many responses will not be able to refrain from making fun of the Clain/Question format I used?
nick
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi David,

Don't want to start a new useless thread here, my point was basically to
show that b/g has a wider adoption and 75% of the laptops don't have
built-in a, so it makes sense to make additional effort to get it working.

I also learn from a previous email the reasons why b/g are not so good in
our meeting, and may be thru our liaison with IEEE we need to make some
noise over there, so the market use a better technology.

I also got some folks confirming that a cards where available also in
previous meetings, but probably that was not properly advertised, may be ?

Regards,
Jordi




> De: David Kessens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:38:51 -0800
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "ietf@ietf.org" 
> Asunto: Re: Meeting Survey Results
> 
> 
> Jordi,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:44:15PM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure if I got it. My MUST was on the other way around: We really
>> need to warrantee good coverage for b/g to 75% of the participants.
> 
> We hope to offer good connectivity to the other 25% of the participants as
> well.
> 
> You can help us by bringing a configured 802.11a card.
> 
> David Kessens
> ---
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




**
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Questions for those in favor of CoS in general

[Peter Dambier]

To make a long debate short.

When you no longer know what is real and what is imagination,
that is a clear sign that the Church of Scientology might
be involved.

When you have facts in front of your eyes but people keep
telling you different.

When new facts start aperaring but you have no clue of their
origin.

Would it not be easier to ask about cult membership and
then to decide whom to exclude and whom not?

By the way, Scientology is a history of censoring.

I am sorry if I am terrybly off topic now,
but all threads around Jefseys posting rights are.

regards,
Peter and Karin Dambier


--
Peter and Karin Dambier
The Public-Root Consortium
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49(6252)671-788 (Telekom)
+49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

[Cyrus Daboo]

Hi Brian,

--On January 24, 2006 2:06:20 PM +0100 Brian E Carpenter 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



2. it would be much appreciated, subject to financial limits,
to have some wireless connectivity through Friday afternoon.


It may be enough just to keep the terminal room open as long as possible 
(with both wired and wireless access only in that area) but allow wireless 
in the meeting rooms to be dismantled after all meetings are done.


--
Cyrus Daboo


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposal for keeping "free speech" but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)

[Doug Royer]

Are you going to write mailing list software an provide it
free of charge to implement all of this?



Jeroen Massar wrote:

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:


Pekka Savola writes:



Why must each and every WG member be required to filter a person's
postings?  Much more convenient to do so in one place.


Because each and every WG member is an individual, with his own ideas
of what he does or doesn't want to read, and imposing the same rules
upon everyone prevents members from making their own decisions.  It
also imposes the decisions of a small minority upon the majority.



Here goes for a try... flame me off list if required.

As it is indeed quite controversial to 'block' people, maybe there can
be a solution that, though it will have overhead for listadmins, it will
help the process that the workinggroup is actually for in the first place.

In the several messages there have been brought up a number of solutions
 to the problem where one or multiple entities are (deliberately)
flooding/overloading the mailinglists of workinggroups and other places
with off-topic messages.

There seem to be a couple of solutions, amongst which:
 - Filtering based on source address at the receiver
 - Filtering based on keywords, which has really bad side-effects.
 - Blocking the sender at the mailinglist level.
 - 3683 PR for complete full blockage of posting rights.

The first is reasonably fine, as you don't see the message of the entity
that one finds not useful, but you might see responses of others thus
this is still intrusive and you still get those messages which you
wanted to filter out. The second option might filter out messages which
you did want to read. Both still will get these messages in the
mailinglist archive, even though there was a consensus that those
messages are unwanted.

The third and fourth option are pretty definitive, no more messages from
that entity, but this might be seen as silencing this persons freedom of
speech.

My proposal to solve this issue but keeping everybody happy:

Two mailinglists: @ietf.org + full.@ietf.org

full.@ is completely open, anybody can post anything they want
though hopefully on topic on the subject of the workinggroup and of
course based on the source address having a subscription *1
full.@ is subscribed to @ thus full.wg gets everything
preserving, at least parts, of the freedom of speech that is wanted and
for the people who want to read a lot of mail everyday.

Initially everybody who signs up to the @ list can post to it.
When the consensus on the list is that a member is not participating
correctly, ignoring warnings etc, like currently this member can be
banned from the list for a temporary amount of time. The member can
still voice his opinions on the @ list. This thus allows him to
voice his concerns to the members that do want to read them. Like the
current 3683 PR the ban can become effectively indefinitely for the main
list, while the poster is still and always allowed on full.@.


The big concern here is of course that one could say that if you get
booted out of the group that your voice won't be heard as they are not
reading the other list. This is of course true, but one can raise their
concerns on the full list, for instance Google won't differentiate
between them and there will always be folks who will listen to it and
forward these concerns when they have valid argumentation. By posting
'good' messages to the full.@ list a member can also demonstrate
that he is really willing to contribute instead of disrupt. One of the
nicest controversies is of course what to determine good and bad,
starwars as an example, how bad are the jedi and how good are the sith,
it completely depends on the side you are on, nothing else. That all
boils down to trust and other factors, any mailinglist admin could abuse
his position to set the sender of an address to silently discard, SMTP
can have a CC: in the header and mailman will not forward the message to
that person and various other nice tricks.

I hope the above might give a better point to discuss all this over
instead of seeing replies like "that is not good" "see above" and other
comments without effective constructive arguments.

Greets,
 Jeroen

*1 = to avoid the large amount of spam flowing to the various lists
which nicely get blocked because of subscription regulation.






___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


--

Doug Royer | http://IntelliCal.com
---|-
  Intelligent Calendars

begin:vcard
fn:Doug Royer
n:Royer;Doug
org:IntelliCal LLC
adr:;;267 Kentlands Blvd, #3041;Gaithersburg;MD;20878;USA
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:CTO
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://IntelliCal.com
version:2.1
end:vcard

___
Ietf mailin

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[Tim Chown]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:45:51AM -0800, Ned Freed wrote:
> >Are there cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays?
> 
> Yes there are. Here's the one I use:
> 
>   http://www.orangeware.com/endusers/wirelessformac.html
> 
> There's a fairly long list of supported cards, some of which support 
> 802.11a.
> I'm currently using a 3COM 3CRWE154A72 card, FWIW.

Away from the technobabble...

A key finding is that only 7% have to pay their own way to the IETF,
some of whom may have their own companies.

And only 7% say that the $50US fee hike might stop them attending again.

With so many people unhappy with wireless, these stats add up to charging
more for better wireless

The weird stat was 7% for whom $50US extra means they have to file
paperwork to get the money (just eat less? :)

-- 
Tim/::1



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meeting Survey Results

[Ed Juskevicius]

> I also learn from a previous email the reasons why b/g are not 
> so good in our meeting, and may be thru our liaison with IEEE
> we need to make some noise over there, so the market use a
> better technology.

>From the perspective of RF attenuation (and signals not going through
air walls in hotels), 802.11a is actually a better technology.  The
spectrum used is at a higher frequency, and the standard includes more
channels which can be used to deploy a WLAN in tight quarters (like an
IETF meeting).

If making noise would help, I think petitioning Apple to include 802.11a
in their machines would be more effective in the market than asking
IEEE802 to develop yet another WLAN standard (imho).  However, I agree
with your observation that using 802.11a may not be a choice for a lot
of people in Dallas, at IETF 65. 

Regards,

Ed J.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:40 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Meeting Survey Results


Hi David,

Don't want to start a new useless thread here, my point was basically to
show that b/g has a wider adoption and 75% of the laptops don't have
built-in a, so it makes sense to make additional effort to get it
working.

I also learn from a previous email the reasons why b/g are not so good
in our meeting, and may be thru our liaison with IEEE we need to make
some noise over there, so the market use a better technology.

I also got some folks confirming that a cards where available also in
previous meetings, but probably that was not properly advertised, may be
?

Regards,
Jordi




> De: David Kessens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:38:51 -0800
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "ietf@ietf.org" 
> Asunto: Re: Meeting Survey Results
> 
> 
> Jordi,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:44:15PM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure if I got it. My MUST was on the other way around: We 
>> really need to warrantee good coverage for b/g to 75% of the 
>> participants.
> 
> We hope to offer good connectivity to the other 25% of the 
> participants as well.
> 
> You can help us by bringing a configured 802.11a card.
> 
> David Kessens
> ---
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




**
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

help help, I'm trapped on the bofchairs list

[John L]

which has been discovered by spammers and has no apparent filtering.

To whom should I appeal to ask that it have the usual members-only posting 
rules or something else to keep out the junk?


Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

PS: I realize that if I were a truly virtuous person I would just delete 
the noise, but I am not.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[Steven M. Bellovin]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kessens writes:
>
>Jordi,
>
>On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:44:15PM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure if I got it. My MUST was on the other way around: We really
>> need to warrantee good coverage for b/g to 75% of the participants.
>
>We hope to offer good connectivity to the other 25% of the participants as 
>well.
>
>You can help us by bringing a configured 802.11a card.
>

How much of the benefit of 801.11a is because so few people are using 
it?  Would it hold up if everyone switched to it?

Yes, there are more frequencies and less congestion.  Is that enough?

--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meeting Survey Results

[Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch]

Well, in theory, 802.11a should scale better because of the
shorter range and the additional non-overlapping channels.
Now, I'm not guaranteeing that there won't be other issues we
haven't identified. We haven't had the density on 11a yet to
find the problems we don't know about.  What we do know is that
thus far folks using 11a on IETF networks have been happier than
folks using 11b.

Karen

> How much of the benefit of 801.11a is because so few people are using 
> it?  Would it hold up if everyone switched to it?
> 
> Yes, there are more frequencies and less congestion.  Is that enough?
> 
>   --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Meeting Survey Results

[Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch]

Jordi,

> Don't want to start a new useless thread here, my point was 
> basically to
> show that b/g has a wider adoption and 75% of the laptops don't have
> built-in a, so it makes sense to make additional effort to 
> get it working.

My basic problem with this and previous comments on this topic 
from you is the implication that with better planning and/or 
additional effort the problems would be solved. If you believe 
this to be so, then please share that technical knowledge. I have 
been involved in most of the IETF wireless networks for the last 
three years. We don't plan in advance to deploy wireless networks 
with issues. Some of what I consider the best in the business have
worked on this over the years, and we still run into issues. 
Concrete technical suggestions for improvements and contributions 
of resources (equipment and people) are welcome. Just telling us
to put forth "additional effort to get it working" doesn't get 
the job done.

Karen


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[Steven M. Bellovin]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ds.navy.mil>, "Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch" writes:
>Well, in theory, 802.11a should scale better because of the
>shorter range and the additional non-overlapping channels.
>Now, I'm not guaranteeing that there won't be other issues we
>haven't identified. We haven't had the density on 11a yet to
>find the problems we don't know about.  What we do know is that
>thus far folks using 11a on IETF networks have been happier than
>folks using 11b.
>

Yup.  And the difference between theory and practice is that in theory, 
there is no difference, but in practice there is...

I agree with your observation -- 802.11a users are more satisfied with 
the network.  I made sure that I got an 802.11a-capable interface when 
I bought a new laptop.  But I'm reluctant to tell everyone to do that 
without more assurance that it will solve the problem.  We've heard 
lots of hypotheses over the years on what to do about 802.11b/g, 
including lower-power access points, more attention to channel 
assignment, and getting people to turn off ad hoc mode.  None of those 
have solved the problem.  Will switching to 802.11a?  Is there other 
prior art we need to look at?

--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

802.11a (RE: Meeting Survey Results)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

[the dreaded subject-changer strikes again]

--On 25. januar 2006 12:20 -0600 "Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Well, in theory, 802.11a should scale better because of the
shorter range and the additional non-overlapping channels.
Now, I'm not guaranteeing that there won't be other issues we
haven't identified. We haven't had the density on 11a yet to
find the problems we don't know about.  What we do know is that
thus far folks using 11a on IETF networks have been happier than
folks using 11b.


One thing I learned at the IEEE meeting the week following the IETF (where 
the week started with EXACTLY the same problems as at the IETF) was that 
the 802.11a specifications left out the "ad hoc mode".


So we're *guaranteed* that no conformant 802.11a card will go into "ad hoc 
mode", because there ain't no such thing.


Yours for the removal of features

 Harald





pgpJhvViNFsM6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Free speech? Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

[Gray, Eric]

Anthony,

I actually feel that meeting summaries and - occasionally
surveys - can be a critical constructive part of the process.

--
Eric

--> -Original Message-
--> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
--> On Behalf Of Anthony G. Atkielski
--> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:55 PM
--> To: ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: Free speech? Re: Against "PR-action against 
--> Jefsey Morfin"
--> 
--> grenville armitage writes:
--> 
--> > Must admit I always thought it was constructive speech 
--> (in the sense
--> > of attempting to engineer solutions, new architectures, 
--> protocols or
--> > clarity of understanding) that was at the core of 
--> discussions at IETF.
--> 
--> Then I suppose that threads such as "Meeting Survey Results," which
--> have nothing to do with these goals, are out of order?
--> 
--> Decisions as to what counts as "constructive" are 
--> subjective, unfortunately.
--> 
--> 
--> ___
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf@ietf.org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[Francis Dupont]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > There's a fairly long list of supported cards, some of which support 
   > 802.11a.

=> as I've currently a 12" PowerBook I'd like to find a "wordwide usable"
.11a USB dongle because:
 - the only time I used an .11a card it was great!
 - if enough persons are switching to .11a perhaps the .11b/g is
   becoming again usable.
   
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

PS: I need a local (Dallas) place to buy it too.
PPS: it seems the ZyXEL AG-225H is supported (there is a driver on
us.zyel.com for MacOS). Of course, it is not possible to get one in France.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[David Kessens]

Steve,

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 01:38:03PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> 
> I agree with your observation -- 802.11a users are more satisfied with 
> the network.  I made sure that I got an 802.11a-capable interface when 
> I bought a new laptop.  But I'm reluctant to tell everyone to do that 
> without more assurance that it will solve the problem.  We've heard 
> lots of hypotheses over the years on what to do about 802.11b/g, 
> including lower-power access points, more attention to channel 
> assignment, and getting people to turn off ad hoc mode.  None of those 
> have solved the problem.  Will switching to 802.11a?  Is there other 
> prior art we need to look at?

Theory and practical experience both indicate that 802.11a can give
you better performance in IETF settings.

And for the record, we are not talking about switching to 802.11a
(check out: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/notes_noc65.html). We are
advising people to bring a card/dongle that is capable of 802.11a to
take advantage of this better performing technology. At current prices
(it is not hard to find prices well below US$50), this seems a rather
small investment to make.

David Kessens
---

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[David Kessens]

Francis,

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:27:37PM +0100, Francis Dupont wrote:
> 
> PS: I need a local (Dallas) place to buy it too.

www.frys.com
Fry's Electronics
12710 Executive Drive
Dallas, TX
(214) 342-5900

about 14 miles from the hotel. 

We will see whether we can post this information to the webpage and we
will check if there are more nearby stores.

Of course, Fry's tends to be well worth the drive even if there are
stores that are more nearby.

David Kessens
---

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

"too many notes" -- a modest proposal

[Michael Thomas]

It seems to me that a lot of what causes working group lists to
melt down is simply the volume of traffic -- usually with plenty
of off-topic banter, or exchanges of dubious value, with the resulting
conjestive collapse of our wetware buffering. On good days, the
drop algorithm may be more sophisticated than tail drops; on
bad days...

Perhaps we should take a lesson from TCP and set a receive window
on IETF mailing lists in the face of conjestion. The sender is thus
obligated to keep the transmission within the window, and as a side
effect to consider the quality of the, um, quantity. Just this simple
step would greatly limit (purposeful) DOS attacks and other death 
spirals. It also mitigates the "free speech" attacks by not throttling

based on content (which is inherently contentious), but based on
wg mailing list "bandwidth".

in all modesty, Mike

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal

[Steve Silverman]

It seems to me that limiting users to 3 messages / day (perhaps with a
maximum number of bytes) would be a
minimal impact on free speech but would limit the damage done by
overly productive transmitters. This could be limited to users  who
are nominated to a "limit" list by many users.  How difficult this
would be to implement on the message exploders is another question.

Steve Silverman

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Michael Thomas
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:26 PM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal
>
>
> It seems to me that a lot of what causes working group lists to
> melt down is simply the volume of traffic -- usually with plenty
> of off-topic banter, or exchanges of dubious value, with
> the resulting
> conjestive collapse of our wetware buffering. On good days, the
> drop algorithm may be more sophisticated than tail drops; on
> bad days...
>
> Perhaps we should take a lesson from TCP and set a receive window
> on IETF mailing lists in the face of conjestion. The sender is thus
> obligated to keep the transmission within the window, and as a side
> effect to consider the quality of the, um, quantity. Just
> this simple
> step would greatly limit (purposeful) DOS attacks and other death
> spirals. It also mitigates the "free speech" attacks by not
> throttling
> based on content (which is inherently contentious), but based on
> wg mailing list "bandwidth".
>
>   in all modesty, Mike
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general

[Michael StJohns]

At 06:57 AM 1/25/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Claim:  The claim that all the good people will leave if the noise 
level is too great and if stubborn people with limited technical 
ability aren't banned.


Question:  If that claim is accurate, then since there were no 
PR-Actions for the first 20 years of the IETF one would have to 
assume that all the good people left long ago (years and years) and 
the ones left here now are the ones that drove the good engineers away?


Not exactly correct.   The first person was threatened with removal 
from the IETF list around 1990.  There have been other actions that 
didn't result in removals over the years - usually the threat was 
enough to resolve the issue.  In this case the consensus was to 
continue the particular discussion (amusingly enough the chair wanted 
to move certain discussions off the list unilaterally and I 
objected).  See the IETF archives around the middle of april 
1990.  Subject "mailing list policy" or "inanity".


Now the IETF environment of 1990 is quite different than the one 
today.  I'm fairly sure the discussion points I made then would 
change now because of that change in environment and even more 
because of the sheer amount of traffic on all the mailing lists to 
which I subscribe.







___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal

[Andy Bierman]

Steve Silverman wrote:


It seems to me that limiting users to 3 messages / day (perhaps with a
maximum number of bytes) would be a
minimal impact on free speech but would limit the damage done by
overly productive transmitters. This could be limited to users  who
are nominated to a "limit" list by many users.  How difficult this
would be to implement on the message exploders is another question.

 



I do not share your regulatory zeal.
As a WG Chair and WG participant, I have enough rules to follow already.
The last thing I want to do is count messages and bytes, and enforce
draconian rules like this.



Steve Silverman
 



Andy

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Michael Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:26 PM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal


It seems to me that a lot of what causes working group lists to
melt down is simply the volume of traffic -- usually with plenty
of off-topic banter, or exchanges of dubious value, with
the resulting
conjestive collapse of our wetware buffering. On good days, the
drop algorithm may be more sophisticated than tail drops; on
bad days...

Perhaps we should take a lesson from TCP and set a receive window
on IETF mailing lists in the face of conjestion. The sender is thus
obligated to keep the transmission within the window, and as a side
effect to consider the quality of the, um, quantity. Just
this simple
step would greatly limit (purposeful) DOS attacks and other death
spirals. It also mitigates the "free speech" attacks by not
throttling
based on content (which is inherently contentious), but based on
wg mailing list "bandwidth".

in all modesty, Mike

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

   




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


 




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal

[Scott Kitterman]

On 01/25/2006 16:12, Steve Silverman wrote:
> It seems to me that limiting users to 3 messages / day (perhaps with a
> maximum number of bytes) would be a
> minimal impact on free speech but would limit the damage done by
> overly productive transmitters. This could be limited to users  who
> are nominated to a "limit" list by many users.  How difficult this
> would be to implement on the message exploders is another question.
>
> Steve Silverman
>
This rule was in place during MARID, although there were no technical 
restrictions, just reminders from the chairs.

It seemed to me at the time that the rule had the least effect on those that 
needed it most (myself included at times).

Scott Kitterman

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal & Re: Proposal for keeping "free speech" but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)

[Jeroen Massar]

[aggregated message, the from's are in the cc, Rob see first reply]

Top-PS: Did folks see and read the following:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-00.txt


Michael Thomas wrote:
[..]
> Perhaps we should take a lesson from TCP and set a receive window
> on IETF mailing lists in the face of conjestion. The sender is thus
> obligated to keep the transmission within the window, and as a side
> effect to consider the quality of the, um, quantity. Just this simple
> step would greatly limit (purposeful) DOS attacks and other death
> spirals. It also mitigates the "free speech" attacks by not throttling
> based on content (which is inherently contentious), but based on
> wg mailing list "bandwidth".

A couple of mailinglists already have a form of this, eg for the ipv6
working group mailinglist, see:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg06123.html

This started somewhere around 18 Aug 2003 on request of the chairs.
ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/ipng-mail-archive/ipng.200308
Note that the list was then still hosted at SUN.

Afaik, since this was introduced, people did start posting with higher
content quality and lower quantity. Maybe Rob Austein can provide the
numbers in a nice graph or some other details?

Steve Silverman wrote:
> It seems to me that limiting users to 3 messages / day (perhaps with a
> maximum number of bytes) would be a
> minimal impact on free speech but would limit the damage done by
> overly productive transmitters. This could be limited to users  who
> are nominated to a "limit" list by many users.

Limiting to less than 3 per day would be the same as suspending for X
hours. Next to that it might also inhibit one from fixing a statement,
though of course one should re-read their post before posting.

> How difficult this
> would be to implement on the message exploders is another question.

Mailman is python and it should not be to difficult to add per-poster
counters, but this would also require that the secretariat applies those
patches and then hope that these changes are really working perfectly
well. A lot of testing would be required. Many people depend on the list
software, breaking it is not something that will be taken lightly ;)
Also avoiding such counters can be done easily by using multiple
subscriptions, but indeed that would be obvious.

Doug Royer wrote:
> 
> Are you going to write mailing list software an provide it
> free of charge to implement all of this?

That already exists, it is called Mailman, which is what at least
@ietf.org uses and several of the lists not hosted here also.
Note the "X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5" header in every post.

The existing lists are already there, just add an extra 'full' list,
subscribe the mainlist to the full list, which is quite normal with
umbrella lists, and presto. Now when somebody gets suspended from the
mainlist, the WG Chair can then ask the listadmin to move the
subscription of the to be suspended person from the mainlist to the
alternate list. Thus add on full, remove from main.

The technical part is the very easy part here. It is politics and maybe
more over ethnics and some other factors which are the hard parts.


Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[..full/main list..]
> In fact this has been implemented at least once that I know of - on
> the DNSO GA mailing list. The "full" version had relatively few
> subscribers.

Only suspended folks or "suspended-lovers" (AmaViS style) would indeed
be interested in following it. To avoid this we could, at first setup
the full list to contain all the members of

The DNSO list also has a long 'rules of order' file:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html

> Another variant is the ietf-censored version of the IETF list that I
> ran for a while, but left to others when becoming IETF chair - google
> claims that
> 
> is a current page for it.

I guess the main problem with this list is that the WG Chair doesn't
have (much) influence on it. It is neither an official list. Also it is
not clear who has been censored or not, which indeed means censoring,
while IMHO we still want to allow people to voice their opinions and not
simply discard them. The naming 'censored' is thus quite correct for
this list but I that is also something that the IETF should steer clear
from with a wide angle.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch wrote:
> 
>
> I was a subscriber to both of the DNSO GA mailing lists and I do think
> the experiment worked for the most part.

As the list isn't active any more it might be useful to get input from
the members of the list that where then participating. Of course from
both the "I want to be on the main" and "on the full" lists. Off-list
replies for 'counting' are welcome.

> I've seen this a few times [..] Anything that can be done to improve
> participation is a good thing.

Exactly my opinion.

> PS...I've known Jefsey online since those early DNSO an

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Karen,

I understand your point, which somehow has been replied by some other
comments in the list such as:

- Is not so clear that this technology (a) will still work if all use it.
- We are asking to change to 75% of the attendees.
- 50USD may be a lot for some people.

Moreover, my comment comes basically from the perspective of understanding
that is a lack of information what it matters here. It may have been my own
ignorance regarding the theoretical advantages of a versus b/g, which make
me assume that it was just a question of more APs or something similar,
because my previous experience in b/g only networks, has always been good
except in IETF meetings. Of course, the number of people using it was not so
big.

Some times it may be better to have a more detailed explanation from the NOC
about why this decision is taken, instead of just providing the decision and
full stop. That probably could have avoided the complete thread (which was
very informative in any case, but may be not so much in other similar
situations).

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:30:32 -0600
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
> Conversación: Meeting Survey Results
> Asunto: RE: Meeting Survey Results
> 
> Jordi,
> 
>> Don't want to start a new useless thread here, my point was
>> basically to
>> show that b/g has a wider adoption and 75% of the laptops don't have
>> built-in a, so it makes sense to make additional effort to
>> get it working.
> 
> My basic problem with this and previous comments on this topic
> from you is the implication that with better planning and/or
> additional effort the problems would be solved. If you believe
> this to be so, then please share that technical knowledge. I have
> been involved in most of the IETF wireless networks for the last
> three years. We don't plan in advance to deploy wireless networks
> with issues. Some of what I consider the best in the business have
> worked on this over the years, and we still run into issues.
> Concrete technical suggestions for improvements and contributions
> of resources (equipment and people) are welcome. Just telling us
> to put forth "additional effort to get it working" doesn't get
> the job done.
> 
> Karen
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




**
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that 
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, including attached files, is prohibited.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

We had a discussion on this back in May 2003, and I created a mailing list 
for it called "ietf-moderation" - you can subscribe to the list by 
http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-moderation, or the usual 
-request spiel.


Total traffic seems to have been 3 messages in May and 9 messages in 
December, so it would be a quick job to review.


The list's still available to continue the discussion.

--On 25. januar 2006 12:26 -0800 Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


It seems to me that a lot of what causes working group lists to
melt down is simply the volume of traffic -- usually with plenty
of off-topic banter, or exchanges of dubious value, with the resulting
conjestive collapse of our wetware buffering. On good days, the
drop algorithm may be more sophisticated than tail drops; on
bad days...

Perhaps we should take a lesson from TCP and set a receive window
on IETF mailing lists in the face of conjestion. The sender is thus
obligated to keep the transmission within the window, and as a side
effect to consider the quality of the, um, quantity. Just this simple
step would greatly limit (purposeful) DOS attacks and other death
spirals. It also mitigates the "free speech" attacks by not throttling
based on content (which is inherently contentious), but based on
wg mailing list "bandwidth".

in all modesty, Mike

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf








pgpXjywKP494d.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:


In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kessens writes:


Jordi,

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:44:15PM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:


I'm not sure if I got it. My MUST was on the other way around: We  
really

need to warrantee good coverage for b/g to 75% of the participants.


We hope to offer good connectivity to the other 25% of the  
participants as well.


You can help us by bringing a configured 802.11a card.



How much of the benefit of 801.11a is because so few people are using
it?  Would it hold up if everyone switched to it?

Yes, there are more frequencies and less congestion.  Is that enough?



I imagine we are about to find out.

Regards
Marshall



--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal

[Douglas Otis]

On Jan 25, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

We had a discussion on this back in May 2003, and I created a  
mailing list for it called "ietf-moderation" - you can subscribe to  
the list by http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf- 
moderation, or the usual -request spiel.


Total traffic seems to have been 3 messages in May and 9 messages  
in December, so it would be a quick job to review.


The list's still available to continue the discussion.



I suspect that at the moment, I am the guilty party in consuming  
bandwidth on the DKIM list.  With the aggressive schedule, the  
immediate desire was to get issues listed, corrected, and in a form  
found acceptable.  I initially attempted to bundle these issues and  
was requested to make separate posts.  Each of these posts then  
resulted in an exchange of two or three subsequent exchanges offering  
corrections and guidance, with follow-on.  I don't expect this to  
continue, and my apologies if this has created any difficulty.  I  
will make an effort to slow down.


-Doug

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

[David Kessens]

Jordi,

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 05:47:17PM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> I understand your point, which somehow has been replied by some other
> comments in the list such as:
> 
> - Is not so clear that this technology (a) will still work if all use it.
> - We are asking to change to 75% of the attendees.

I don't understand why you keep harping on this issue that only exists
because you have misread our announcement.

We have been very forthcoming and clear why we like people to bring
802.11a cards.

We are not forcing anybody to use 802.11a and there is absolutely no
talk of not providing 802.11b wireless access. We *RECOMMEND* that
people bring and use 802.11a gear because we believe that *EVERYBODY*,
including people who only have 802.11b cards, will have a better
network experience.

The only thing that we should have mentioned, but that we overlooked
as most cards/dongles on the market now do 802.11a,b&g, is that we
don't recommend to leave your 802.11b equipment at home. The hotel is
very large and there will be areas in the fringes that will have
better 802.11b coverage or that are only covered by the hotels own
802.11b service.

> - 50USD may be a lot for some people.

You can easily get cards *LESS* than US$50. It is your judgement call
whether you believe that this investment is worth it. Don't buy a
802.11a card/dongle if you think it is too much. Nobody forces you to
buy one.

David Kessens
---

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Michael Thomas writes:

> Perhaps we should take a lesson from TCP and set a receive window
> on IETF mailing lists in the face of conjestion. The sender is thus
> obligated to keep the transmission within the window, and as a side
> effect to consider the quality of the, um, quantity. Just this simple
> step would greatly limit (purposeful) DOS attacks and other death 
> spirals. It also mitigates the "free speech" attacks by not throttling
> based on content (which is inherently contentious), but based on
> wg mailing list "bandwidth".

Sounds fine to me ... but I know it would never fly.  Some people
consider themselves "more equal than others" and would object as soon
as their "important" posts were rejected, no matter how much traffic
they were generating.  And they'd point to the occasional posters and
insist that their infrequent posts were far less worthy of inclusion
on the list.  And so on.  In other words, it would be fair, but
fairness is not what most people want.  They want total freedom for
themselves, but heavy restrictions for everyone else.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Michael StJohns writes:

> Now the IETF environment of 1990 is quite different than the one
> today.

How?  And why?


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Steve Silverman writes:

> It seems to me that limiting users to 3 messages / day (perhaps with
> a maximum number of bytes) would be a minimal impact on free speech
> but would limit the damage done by overly productive transmitters.
> This could be limited to users who are nominated to a "limit" list
> by many users.

Bzzzt!  No, that ruins the whole idea.  It's just censorship by
another name.

If three messages is enough for responsible contributions by one
person, it's enough for responsible contributions from anyone.  If
it's not, then the limit must be higher.  But the limit has to be the
same for everyone.

As I've already said, this idea is too fair to work.  Nobody wants
fairness; most people want total freedom for themselves and severe
restrictions on everyone else--censorship, in other words.  A limit
that everyone would be forced to respect would be rejected by the very
same people who cry out for limits.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal & Re: Proposal for keeping "free speech" but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Jeroen Massar writes:

> Limiting to less than 3 per day would be the same as suspending for X
> hours.

They would both be the same only if they were carried out in the same
way.

If either method is applied to specific users, it's still just
arbitrary censorship.  If it is applied equally to everyone by a
robot, then it's fair.

> Next to that it might also inhibit one from fixing a statement,
> though of course one should re-read their post before posting.

Life is tough.  As long as the same restrictions apply to _everyone_,
no problem.

> Mailman is python and it should not be to difficult to add per-poster
> counters, but this would also require that the secretariat applies those
> patches and then hope that these changes are really working perfectly
> well. A lot of testing would be required. Many people depend on the list
> software, breaking it is not something that will be taken lightly ;)
> Also avoiding such counters can be done easily by using multiple
> subscriptions, but indeed that would be obvious.

Excuses, excuses.  The urge to manually and subjectively _censor_ is
irresistibly strong, is it not?


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Andy Bierman writes:

> I do not share your regulatory zeal.
> As a WG Chair and WG participant, I have enough rules to follow already.
> The last thing I want to do is count messages and bytes, and enforce
> draconian rules like this.

But counting messages and bytes happens to be something that can be
easily automated, and it can be applied with absolute consistency to
everyone, without prejudice.  Of course, those are exactly the reasons
why many people would reject the idea--they want to keep other people
from posting, but they also fear being prevented from posting
themselves.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal

[Andy Bierman]

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:


Andy Bierman writes:

 


I do not share your regulatory zeal.
As a WG Chair and WG participant, I have enough rules to follow already.
The last thing I want to do is count messages and bytes, and enforce
draconian rules like this.
   



But counting messages and bytes happens to be something that can be
easily automated, and it can be applied with absolute consistency to
everyone, without prejudice.  Of course, those are exactly the reasons
why many people would reject the idea--they want to keep other people
from posting, but they also fear being prevented from posting
themselves.
 



I think you missed my point.
I should have said "enforce or abide by draconian rules".
Automating the process is even worse.
Then stupid scripts disrupt WG activity on a regular basis.
Inappropriate mailing list use should be dealt with by the
WG Chair(s) in a more diplomatic manner. 



Andy



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


 




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general

[Randy Presuhn]

Hi -

>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Jan 25, 2006 6:57 PM
>To: Frank Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ietf@ietf.org
>Subject: Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general
...
>Claim:  The claim that all the good people will leave if the noise
>level is too great and if stubborn people with limited technical ability 
>aren't banned.

A more accurate restatement is that some good people have
already left because participation in the IETF was sufficiently
unpleasant for them, and that other productive people are on the
verge of leaving for the same reason.

How much snake oil and vitriol one is willing to tolerate varies
with the individual and how much they're rewarded (in one
way or another) for spending time in this snake pit.

>Question:  If that claim is accurate, then since there were no PR-Actions
>for the first 20 years of the IETF one would have to assume that all
>the good people left long ago (years and years) and the ones left
>here now are the ones that drove the good engineers away?

I know first-hand of several very good engineers who have stopped
participating here, and have cited the level of nastiness as a key
motivating factor.   The question is of finding a balance between the
human need for civility, and our willingness to extract work from
the uncivil.

Randy

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal

[Eliot Lear]

Douglas Otis wrote:
> I suspect that at the moment, I am the guilty party in consuming
> bandwidth on the DKIM list.  With the aggressive schedule, the
> immediate desire was to get issues listed, corrected, and in a form
> found acceptable.  
Without going into all the reasons why here, I asked Doug to separate
out issues into separate messages.

Eliot

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

On 06:22 26/01/2006, Randy Presuhn said:

I know first-hand of several very good engineers who have stopped
participating here, and have cited the level of nastiness as a key
motivating factor.   The question is of finding a balance between the
human need for civility, and our willingness to extract work from
the uncivil.


Dear Randy,
good question. We all know many cases (I get mails from unknowns due 
to the PR-action). I think there is a structural response and two cases.


The structural response is that people are who they are. Internet 
Engineers are humanly no different from others. Those who cannot work 
with average others will probably not produce a good work in such a 
community. If you do not have the guts to affront the whole IETF, who 
will take your proposition for innovation seriously? It a sort of 
community quality control PR self-action. The only problem is when 
the one ready to face the wolfpack is technically loony, or out of 
phase with the IETF objectives. IAB appeal should address that issue, 
long before any PR action. I accept it is never nice for a seasoned 
expert to be barked at by a young puppy, or a stupid opponent. But, a 
good seasoned expert is a good seasoned expert because he learned to 
take benefit from everything. Also, it permits everyone to know if a 
debate is biased or personal, if the raised technical issues are 
discussed or not.


The two different cases depends on the real motivation and impact (of 
a person or of debate). Does it belongs to the IETF scope or not. 
This is still to the IAB to decide. In the case of the WG-ltru you 
have been embarked in one of the seldom IETF cases (IP addresses 
numbering plan, DNS root are the only two comparable, and less 
important, issues I can think of) where the world is concerned. All 
the more than in the two other cases, they concern Internet issues 
(IP and DNS). Here the matter concerns the humanity core (languages 
are its most important common property). You dealt with a major 
source of power and money: the control of the IANA registry of the 
text industries. Still more important to the mankind and economy than 
music, films and games. I think you should have initially asked the 
IAN guidance I have eventually asked.


In my case, one of thre reasons of this threat, the controlling group 
used it standard protection first: initial uncivility. This does not 
work with me. Also, a private control of the IANA language tag 
registry would kill my job. So, I survived them. What is most 
interesting is that people who had been nastily ejected asked me to 
represent them, or helped me. Also, that people who felt unsecure 
asked me to be their lighting rod. I reported I observed the same 
effect with the PR-action.


This being said, I agree that some working tools and procedures, a 
jury of honor, etc. would probably help the IETF. But this seem 
beyond reach due to its communitu hysteresis, and it might affect its 
time proven capacities.

jfc



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf