> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:20:39 -0500, Andrew Sullivan
> said:
AS> I'm not sure I agree with that claim. It's true that decisions are
AS> not made by counting votes. Decisions _are_ supposed to be made,
AS> during consensus call, by weighing the arguments and the apparent
AS> support fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> "Andrew" == Andrew Newton writes:
Andrew> Considering the IETF encourages people to communicate with
Andrew> it via mailing lists and there really has been no other ways
Andrew> offered to the FSF, I can't really blame them.
An
At 08:21 10-02-2009, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Because if organizing an email campaign works for the FSF, next thing you
know, BigCorp X will be telling everyone who works for it 'we want standard Q
approved, please send email to the IETF list about that'. If we allow
ourselves to be influenced by a ma
In fairness, the posts resulting from the FSF, uh, call to action, of
this issue have been polite and tried to make a point. Some of them
may be more or less informed about the facts at hand but they have
been on topic and do express an opinion. I'm sure we can all think of
examples of fa
> From: Keith Moore
>> a formal policy that a mass email campaign should count _against_ the
>> position taken by that campaign, precisely to dis-incentivize such
>> campaigns.
> that kind of policy might actually encourage "gaming" of the IETF.
Good point. It might be hard
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Andrew Sullivan
>
> > This means that those "driving by" have to be tolerated, I think.
>
> Ah, no.
>
> Because if organizing an email campaign works for the FSF, next thing you
> know, BigCorp X will be telling everyone who works for it 'we want standard Q
h...@cisco.com]
Sent: February 10, 2009 11:36 AM
To: Ed Juskevicius; 'Noel Chiappa'
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: how to contact the IETF
On 2/10/09 11:34 AM, "Ed Juskevicius" wrote:
> I am not trying to pour cold water on your idea here, but rather I am
> wondering how
On 2/10/09 11:34 AM, "Ed Juskevicius" wrote:
> I am not trying to pour cold water on your idea here, but rather I am
> wondering how something like this could be formalized, versus handled as an
> exceptional case when and if it occurs.
I don't really how understand "count against" would
work in
.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: how to contact the IETF
> From: Andrew Sullivan
> This means that those "driving by" have to be tolerated, I think.
Ah, no.
Because if organizing an email campaign works for the FSF, next thing you
know, BigCorp X will be t
> From: Andrew Sullivan
> This means that those "driving by" have to be tolerated, I think.
Ah, no.
Because if organizing an email campaign works for the FSF, next thing you
know, BigCorp X will be telling everyone who works for it 'we want standard Q
approved, please send email to the
f Of
Andrew Sullivan
Sent: February 10, 2009 11:03 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: how to contact the IETF
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:19:57AM -0500, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Well, no, I don't agree with that last bit, in the
> sense that I don't think "replied on the maili
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:19:57AM -0500, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Well, no, I don't agree with that last bit, in the
> sense that I don't think "replied on the mailing list"
> really means the same thing as "participated."
I think we're in agreement. All I'm suggesting is that there's no _a
pri
On 2/10/09 9:27 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
> Sure. But under such classical consensus decision-making, one knows
> who's in "the group" for the consensus. The IETF doesn't, because the
> answer to "Who's in the group?" is supposed to be "Who replied on the
> mailing list?"
Well, no, I don't a
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 05:57:28AM -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> And the question is: did all those people writing in read and understand
> the draft and fully understand the issue? Or are they just
> regurgitating a "do this" announcement. How do you weigh a bunch of
> uninformed responses again
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 08:41:50AM -0500, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Under classical consensus decision-making there's
> a prerequisite that the participants have some
> investment in the process itself and that they
> actively participate. Drive by "I'm against it!"
> posts almost certainly don't qu
On 2/10/09 7:20 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with that claim. It's true that decisions are
> not made by counting votes. Decisions _are_ supposed to be made,
> during consensus call, by weighing the arguments and the apparent
> support for the document.
Under classical co
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 06:45:03PM -0500, Ofer Inbar wrote:
> IETF decisions don't get made by counting votes, as you know.
> There's no value in having lots and lots of people write to say
> essentially the same thing - it just annoys list members, but
> doesn't actually contribute to the discuss
On 2009-02-10 15:12, David Morris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2009, John Levine wrote:
>
>> Any chance we could require that one subscribes to the list before
>> posting to it? I realize that sufficiently motivated drive-bys could
>> subscribe, send, and leave, but it might reinforce the idea t
On Mon, 10 Feb 2009, John Levine wrote:
Any chance we could require that one subscribes to the list before
posting to it? I realize that sufficiently motivated drive-bys could
subscribe, send, and leave, but it might reinforce the idea that IETF
lists are for debate, not for screeds.
Subscr
Dear Steve:
Indeed, I can see your perspective on this now, with the aid of
information that I was unaware of previously. I did not recall this
situation happening before (either I wasn't paying attention at that
time, or I was not yet a member of the list at that time, I joined -
if I recall cor
>IIRC, from the previous time, not one person stuck around afterwards
>to actually initiate a dialog.
That is my recollection as well. Given the cut and paste errors in
many of the messages, I don't get the impression that our new friends,
polite though they may be, are particularly well informed
> From: Andrew Newton
> Considering the IETF encourages people to communicate with it via
> mailing lists
Actually, I thought the point of the mailing lists was for the members of the
IETF community to be able communicate with each other (notice how those two
words have a similar roo
Alex,
The conclusion I draw from this experience differs from yours. If the
individuals who sent the messages in question choose to become
involved constructively, then there can be some benefit. But, the act
of sending the messages in question has generated ill will, so it was
a bad way to b
On Feb 9, 2009, at 7:35 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
Excerpts from Tim Bray on Mon, Feb 09, 2009 04:30:04PM -0800:
The vast majority of these FSF-solicited comments have been
respectful and
polite in tone.
Someone who comes by, drops an opinion and then leaves, is not giving
any of us respect. I
Dear Clint:
Ah, I see. It seems that my optimism is misguided, if there is a
precedent of such situations not having any long or short term
benefits. That is unfortunate.
However, it did have one minor benefit, which may be of questionable
merit. The sheer volume of E-Mails did force me to pay
Alex,
This is not the first time the FSF has mailbombed i...@ietf.org, in
fact this is the second time they have done so on this issue alone.
IIRC, from the previous time, not one person stuck around afterwards
to actually initiate a dialog. It was all a one-way blast of
"communication", a monol
Excerpts from Tim Bray on Mon, Feb 09, 2009 04:30:04PM -0800:
> The vast majority of these FSF-solicited comments have been respectful and
> polite in tone.
Someone who comes by, drops an opinion and then leaves, is not giving
any of us respect. I am always pleased to have a constructive
discu
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Alex Loret de Mola
>
>> However, these are people who are upset, and want to make thier
>> opinions known... it is good to know (and see) that so many people are
>> interested and have a strong opinion about this subject
Dear Noel:
Noel, there's no need to be cross. The mail is filling up my inbox
the same as yours, there's no need to get upset with me about my
opinion on the matter.
I don't think we should assume that the people messaging here have
nothing of substance to contribute. While it is likely true th
> From: Alex Loret de Mola
> However, these are people who are upset, and want to make thier
> opinions known... it is good to know (and see) that so many people are
> interested and have a strong opinion about this subject.
Give me an effing break. These people have simply been
Alex Loret de Mola wrote:
> Dear Carsten: (And others who feel upset at the recent development)
>
> As someone who's been a (mostly silent, but frequently reading) member
> of this mailing list, I can understand your concern. However, can you
> propose a better way for them to contact members of
Dear Cos:
True, and I agree with the facts about the process completely.
However, these are people who are upset, and want to make thier
opinions known... though there is no "voting process", per se, it is
good to know (and see) that so many people are interested and have a
strong opinion about th
32 matches
Mail list logo
