Re: [dmarc-ietf] Messages from the dmarc list for the week ending Sun Apr 30 06:00:04 2023

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On April 30, 2023 4:06:49 PM UTC, Hector iPhone6 <winserver=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 30, 2023, at 8:53 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 30.04.23 13:49, Hector Santos wrote:
>>> What is the count based on?  Is the count the amount of mail created since the last date of this report which was 1 week ago? 
>>> 
>>> Did Scott create 25 messages and myself 14 messages in one week? I don't think so. 
>> 
>> I do.
>> 
>> Here's what I learned after a few minutes of review.  The point of the script is to help you self-moderate, so perhaps there's something for you to discover in these numbers. At the very least, you could check the IETF mail archives before complaining.
>> 
>> Eliot
>> 
>
>Fair enough.  I count 12-13 so there is a bug. 
>
>So is this point is this report? 
>
>To shame people for participating like Scott, myself and the other top 10?  
>
>How about shaming those that seem to only post to shame others? Th low posters that dont really care with top posters are saying. 
>
>How about showing a report that shows the top posters and top topics, and most important, the response rate to compare which post have no responses. That would have a better feel representation of WG than rather trying to shame people.

I, for one, appreciate the reports.  When working for consensus that's only as rough as it absolutely needs to be, it's important to hear from all voices and that one voice doesn't drown out the others.  In the past, I have been surprised at how much I was posting and took it as a sign to think twice before hitting send.

Shame, however, has nothing to do with it.  The IETF process works better when one person doesn't try to monopolize the conversation.  I have no shortage of opinions on the topics addressed on this list and can sometimes use the reminder that less can be more.

Scott K