Re: ietf@ietf.org is a failure
> I'm not sure how the desire for IETF Last Call discussions to be on a > dedicated and constrained mailing list many years ago, a housing development thought they had a bad crime rate. so they built a fence around it and only let residents in. the crime rate stayed the same. funny thing. procmail is your friend. randy
Re: ietf@ietf.org is a failure
On 09/06/2013 13:20, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not sure how the desire for IETF Last Call discussions > to be on a dedicated and constrained mailing list in any way > implies that this generalized and unconstrained list is somehow a failure. > > Filtering by subject line is unreliable. > For example, please provide a filter that will > not have any false positives or negatives over the > past 20,000 emails on this list. Do we have tools that make sure > no human has altered any subject line inappropriately? > Filtering by mailing list address is much easier and more reliable. True, but it's a much coarser implement. Indeed, I mainly filter to 'junk' rather than 'trash' so that once in a while I can check for false positives. False negatives aren't that big a problem in practice; the delete key works quickly. Brian
Re: ietf@ietf.org is a failure
Hi, I'm not sure how the desire for IETF Last Call discussions to be on a dedicated and constrained mailing list in any way implies that this generalized and unconstrained list is somehow a failure. Filtering by subject line is unreliable. For example, please provide a filter that will not have any false positives or negatives over the past 20,000 emails on this list. Do we have tools that make sure no human has altered any subject line inappropriately? Filtering by mailing list address is much easier and more reliable. Andy On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 09/06/2013 07:55, Melinda Shore wrote: > > On 6/8/13 10:09 AM, SM wrote: > >> As an off-topic comment, there are are alternative ways in making a > >> decision; the best judgement of the most experienced or IETF Consensus. > > > > I don't think it's off-topic. Consensus (rough or otherwise) requires > > that at some point people can live with decisions with > > which they disagree. To the extent that we've seen recent misbehavior > > on this list, it's from only one person who's rejecting the consensus > > and rejecting the process. It's really annoying but I don't think > > it's particularly disruptive. If it becomes disruptive, there's a > > rarely-used hammer: the PR action. > > I agree. Whatever misbehaviour Melinda means hasn't troubled me; > it must be a user or a thread that I filter to junk. > Disagreement is fine as long as people in the end understand > when they're in the rough and not in the consensus. > > There are times when this list annoys me too, but it is far from > a failure IMHO. > >Brian > > >
Re: ietf@ietf.org is a failure
On 09/06/2013 07:55, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 6/8/13 10:09 AM, SM wrote: >> As an off-topic comment, there are are alternative ways in making a >> decision; the best judgement of the most experienced or IETF Consensus. > > I don't think it's off-topic. Consensus (rough or otherwise) requires > that at some point people can live with decisions with > which they disagree. To the extent that we've seen recent misbehavior > on this list, it's from only one person who's rejecting the consensus > and rejecting the process. It's really annoying but I don't think > it's particularly disruptive. If it becomes disruptive, there's a > rarely-used hammer: the PR action. I agree. Whatever misbehaviour Melinda means hasn't troubled me; it must be a user or a thread that I filter to junk. Disagreement is fine as long as people in the end understand when they're in the rough and not in the consensus. There are times when this list annoys me too, but it is far from a failure IMHO. Brian
Re: ietf@ietf.org is a failure
On 6/8/13 10:09 AM, SM wrote: > As an off-topic comment, there are are alternative ways in making a > decision; the best judgement of the most experienced or IETF Consensus. I don't think it's off-topic. Consensus (rough or otherwise) requires that at some point people can live with decisions with which they disagree. To the extent that we've seen recent misbehavior on this list, it's from only one person who's rejecting the consensus and rejecting the process. It's really annoying but I don't think it's particularly disruptive. If it becomes disruptive, there's a rarely-used hammer: the PR action. Melinda
ietf@ietf.org is a failure (was: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org)
At 15:58 07-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote: And it is getting to that conclusion from the above that often troubles me about the posting summary list rankings. Assuming a significant issues shows up on the list, whether in conjunction with a Last Call or something else. Posting a comment and then following up the comments of others with a couple of more postings constitutes three messages in a week, which is pretty reasonable. On the other hand, if there are four such issues in a single week (it happens) then that same individual gets "credited" with a dozen messages, which would make the top of the list in many weeks. I'll reuse some text from IETF 55: - Decisions are taken by backroom deals, intimidation and mob psychology - People unsubscribe in disgust in droves Many years ago the following criticism was made against another body: "The process is stacked in favour of multinationals with expense accounts who can afford to talk on the phone for two hours a week and jet to world capitals for meetings." The IESG once said that it prefers that comments on Last Calls be sent to the ietf@ietf.org list. The IESG also said that authors, working group Chairs and the responsible Area Director are presumed to see all such messages. Is posting the summary list ranking a form of intimidation? I don't know. If ietf@ietf.org is a failure as significant issues are not showing up on the list (see quoted text above) or if the IESG prefers that comments on Last Calls be sent to some other list it can say that. If people unsubscribing in droves is a problem, the IESG could recommend having two hour phone calls a week and meetings in world capitals for Last Calls. If the IESG believes that it is more practical to take decisions through backroom deals it can use a non-public list for handling Last Calls. If a significant number of people cannot act or conduct themselves in a proper way, especially toward others, it is a social problem. If people cannot filter the ietf@ietf.org mailing list, it is a technical problem. The IETF has published a specification which describes a language for filtering email messages at time of final delivery. After reading the latest messages to the list I might conclude that: (i) people do not know about the mail filtering language (ii) people are having technical difficulties using email (iii) it might rain tomorrow As an off-topic comment, there are are alternative ways in making a decision; the best judgement of the most experienced or IETF Consensus. Regards, -sm
