Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Eliot Lear wrote: 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. Exactly. If a WG group is discussing a dozen separate issues in parallel, an active participant can easily send several dozen *constructive* messages in a day. Our problem with disruptive messages can't be solved by counting bytes. Is there really a working group that can realistically deal with a dozen separate issues in parallel? I know that when I see a dozen or so issues posted to a mailing list, my eyes glaze... Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal
Eliot Lear wrote: 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. Exactly. If a WG group is discussing a dozen separate issues in parallel, an active participant can easily send several dozen *constructive* messages in a day. Our problem with disruptive messages can't be solved by counting bytes. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Taking a deep breath (was Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal)
Just for the participants who are enjoying the current discussion on this list (for some value of enjoying) - One of the things that I find most helpful is when people who could be replying posting-by-posting within a thread stop, take a deep breath, and ask themselves, rather than making my point in response to a number of different posts, what am I really trying to say? The same number of bytes, in one coherent message, with some thought given to organization, is a lot more helpful. John Klensin is especially good at this, but he is not the only one (thank goodness). And, just for another hint, John has been able to extract almost verbatim from his postings into Internet Drafts, which also say what he is trying to say in a coherent and organized way. Submitting Internet Drafts is The Only Way our BCPs are going to change, unless we actually enjoy the IESG making it up as we go along as the IETF process. At least one IESG member is receptive enough to the idea of RFC 3933 process experiments that he is writing up proposals himself. If you actually care whether anything changes, that's what you can do, to make a difference. Thanks, Spencer (co-author of RFC 3933, which started out as a John Klensin e-mail, and is now a BCP) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal
Andy Bierman writes: 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. Well, one option is to stop trying to restrict access to lists to begin with. The problem with having a human being make the decision is that human beings are notoriously biased. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal
Brian E Carpenter writes: Exactly. If a WG group is discussing a dozen separate issues in parallel, an active participant can easily send several dozen *constructive* messages in a day. Our problem with disruptive messages can't be solved by counting bytes. Set a rolling monthly quota, then. Nobody constantly sends a long stream of consistently productive messages. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Andy Bierman writes: 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. Well, one option is to stop trying to restrict access to lists to begin with. The problem with having a human being make the decision is that human beings are notoriously biased. If we did this, our mailing lists would be bombarded with SPAM from non-subscribers. There is an appeals process (of that we are too painfully aware) that can be used for people who are told by a WG Chair that they are using the mailing list in an inappropriate manner, and still insist on continuing their behavior. I have found that only the worst managers deal with bad apples by burdening the entire group with oppressive rules. Andy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal
Set a rolling monthly quota, then. Nobody constantly sends a long stream of consistently productive messages. We've certainly been made aware of that. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal
From: Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nobody constantly sends a long stream of consistently productive messages. The irony in you, of all people, making this statement is a little stunning - to the point that one really does start to wonder exactly what could be behind your posting behaviour. Several possibilities come to mind, of course... Well, there will always be more good engineers. In that case, there's no harm in the rest of us deciding we don't need the dubious assistance of few of the most troublesome, and least productive, is there? Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: too many notes -- a modest proposal
Anthony, ... -- -- Set a rolling monthly quota, then. Nobody constantly sends a long -- stream of consistently productive messages. -- -- This is simply not true. All one needs to do is publish a crucial document relevant to the working groups charter, and important to understanding the rest of the work, and one will be inundated with questions. The most productive way to deal with questions in a working group is to answer them publicly on the list. To avoid the trip wire, however, most people woul simply answer specific questions off-line. That would be BAD. Debate on work in progress is critical, must be in public at least much of the time and will usually involve a small number of people - authors in particular - who simply must participate. On several occasions, I have seen productive debate on critical drafts take more than a month in some working groups. -- Eric ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal
Noel Chiappa writes: In that case, there's no harm in the rest of us deciding we don't need the dubious assistance of few of the most troublesome, and least productive, is there? Actually there is, because there's very little correlation between being troublesome on a mailing list and being a bad engineer. This is particularly true when any failure to agree with the majority is interpreted as trouble. People who disagree are usually the motors of change, and therefore of problem resolution. Restricting discussion to those who wish only to maintain conformity and consensus in a happy little community makes for very little trouble, but also eliminates any real purpose for the discussion forum. Maybe anyone who engages in personal attacks should be banned. What do you think? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:16:59PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Brian E Carpenter writes: Exactly. If a WG group is discussing a dozen separate issues in parallel, an active participant can easily send several dozen *constructive* messages in a day. Our problem with disruptive messages can't be solved by counting bytes. Set a rolling monthly quota, then. Nobody constantly sends a long stream of consistently productive messages. Anthony, As a gentle suggestion from one of the Sargeant-At-Arms. If you were to keep track of how many messages you have been posting compared to others, I think you would find that you are one of the more prolific posters on this thread. And if you were to stop, take a breath, and post a single message comprising your thoughts on all of the messages that you have been reading, and were to self-impose your own quota on the number of messages you have posted, it would very likely make the IETF list a more pleasant place to converse. This is a discpline that I would recommend to all who are posting to the IETF list... .but given that you are one of the more prolific as of late and you seem to have suggested the quota idea without any idea of the potential irony of that statement, I would like to commend to you your own suggestion. As others have suggested, if you were take as your model the posting frequency and the thoughtfulness of John Klensin's posts, it would be hard for you to go wrong. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal
Theodore Ts'o writes: As a gentle suggestion from one of the Sargeant-At-Arms. If you were to keep track of how many messages you have been posting compared to others, I think you would find that you are one of the more prolific posters on this thread. And if you were to look at the total number of posts over the past three years, I think you would find that I hardly ever post to this list at all. However, I receive thousands of messages from the list, most of which are of no interest to me, and many of which don't even seem to be related to the nominal purpose of the list ... and I do not complain, nor do I suggest that others limit their posting for my convenience. I understand the value of forums in which freedom of expression is permitted, and I do not apply double standards. And if you were to stop, take a breath, and post a single message comprising your thoughts on all of the messages that you have been reading, and were to self-impose your own quota on the number of messages you have posted, it would very likely make the IETF list a more pleasant place to converse. I don't impose a quota. Quotas are suggestions that others have made, not me. I only suggested that quotas might be the least of several evils, for people who cannot resist the temptation to attempt to silence others with whom they disagree. If you were to stop and reflect before posting personal attacks on other people, you, too, could make the list a more pleasant place to converse. However, unlike you, I shall not attempt to tell you what to post or not post. This is a discpline that I would recommend to all who are posting to the IETF list ... But not one that you are willing to put into practice, apparently. ... but given that you are one of the more prolific as of late and you seem to have suggested the quota idea without any idea of the potential irony of that statement, I would like to commend to you your own suggestion. I didn't suggest any form of censorship. I only try to make suggestions that limit the damages of censorship, since I know that some people can't live without it. As others have suggested, if you were take as your model the posting frequency and the thoughtfulness of John Klensin's posts, it would be hard for you to go wrong. If you were to take as your model my total abstinence from ad hominem, you wouldn't have written your post at all. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
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
RE: too many notes -- a modest proposal
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: too many notes -- a modest proposal
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
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)
[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 http://vesuvio.ipv6.tilab.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf_censored 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: snip 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 and IDNO days and whilst I don't always agree
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal
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: too many notes -- a modest proposal
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: too many notes -- a modest proposal
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: too many notes -- a modest proposal
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)
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
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
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: too many notes -- a modest proposal
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
