IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Review of draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 29 October 2020 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E353A099F for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 15:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QttZ3WyhQnSh for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 15:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A07B3A095F for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 15:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D12F389D9; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:29:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id xBQiC2H4OSYM; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:29:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D55389BB; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:29:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DCF59A; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:22:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9C14BC2B-D2E4-4843-89F5-F0EF130315A0@fugue.com>
References: <CALaySJ+pWd7CCq5j7GLUxF-VOwAm4tx3OthE_gU9pUaMous7=g@mail.gmail.com> <f975ab5a-0f81-ac1f-9a60-36c54c606561@gmail.com> <15656.1603989780@localhost> <CALaySJJegOxuzNTeKmbHLfA+7komr2rwDnQzkqQXg_j8NYUg8Q@mail.gmail.com> <A1C2721C-8578-4431-8628-74EA396C003E@fugue.com> <CALaySJKDro_dmOcvrh6rX9WVFQETr7PrXMccDvLZgatDoMC-3Q@mail.gmail.com> <9C14BC2B-D2E4-4843-89F5-F0EF130315A0@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:22:16 -0400
Message-ID: <7358.1604010136@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/8Dtqi_TNyuvr2dIat-T7UPHQSJw>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Review of draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 22:22:23 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    >> Yes, or, what I would really like, some sense of how active someone
    >> has been in working group discussions.  But I know how bad the results
    >> are likely to be if we key any of this on posting to mailing lists.

    > I think that really isn’t a foregone conclusion. People suggest that
    > there will be an influx of new garbage postings if we make this the
    > rule, but I suspect that’s not at all the case. As an experiment, I
    > think it would make a lot of sense to test this hypothesis. We could
    > tie it to the datatracker to keep people honest: if you have an email
    > address, you can claim it by creating a datatracker login, and then we
    > can correlate addresses between mailing lists and the datatracker
    > database. Still definitely gameable, but how serious of a risk is that?
    > If we did this as an experiment for a year, we’d find out, and could
    > easily stop doing it if it turned out to /actually/ cause a problem.

This is definitely the kind of data collection experiment that we should do.

We need to tell people about this, because it might be important for people
to know that from date X, if your ML posting address is not listed as an alias
in the DT, then your posting won't get counted.  So, please go fix your DT
entries.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email