IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Old directions in social media.

John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Wed, 06 January 2021 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8723A0FB3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 16:16:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 AadiA6nDdQ_Q for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 16:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17FE73A0FB1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 16:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john@jck.com>) id 1kwwVA-0002SK-Vh; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:16:36 -0500
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 19:16:30 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Old directions in social media.
Message-ID: <1C49F0F9C0E248AE8FE44CC4@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <C235A8C4-BABC-4A64-96C6-9D8CC847C1C1@mnot.net>
References: <CAMm+Lwg1-pxKU8vMinFDUbVca52VgFzTOOSJMnJjaUJvF6PLew@mail.gmail.com> <519a0e4d-7102-fac8-1517-04c590a80080@network-heretics.com> <CAJU8_nUU0Km_YtgpWbLF-JVQVUXFYvxBNBYbzaLOXBqQyvvUaA@mail.gmail.com> <062d01d6e387$39c46270$ad4d2750$@acm.org> <CAJU8_nWD3MwLs5aVNMi_3LqZysrfjv0N7N3ujV-zhqxiFh3tsA@mail.gmail.com> <788651ca-0c84-7a54-9c48-b962faed635f@network-heretics.com> <CAJU8_nXSE-E2AVrJnqe5ZifR+qGhXscNCFXQRDj_GU1r=hNOyw@mail.gmail.com> <70416f47-7c31-8571-02ce-f95ff386d54f@network-heretics.com> <X/TtgTtl02AMyns8@mit.edu> <201A6AE0AE9C0C7FA0E5206C@PSB> <C235A8C4-BABC-4A64-96C6-9D8CC847C1C1@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-3pZRm8Qh_ZSIflalkmhFI5WzyQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:16:39 -0000


--On Wednesday, January 6, 2021 11:05 +1100 Mark Nottingham
<mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 
>> On 6 Jan 2021, at 10:57 am, John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
>> wrote:
> ...
>> I suggest that we cross some very unfortunate boundary when
>> what appears on a mailing list is equivalent to "anyone who
>> does not agree with the reasoning and conclusions reached in
>> XYZ needed to speak up".  In that regard, it makes no
>> difference whether "XYZ" is github, "our last interim meeting
>> in a timezone that was inconvenient for some readers", or
>> something else -- the effect is exclusionary and makes claims
>> of consensus far more dubious.
> 
> I think the same could be said about decisions that are made
> on obscure mailing lists -- many developers refuse to
> subscribe to them now because of their awful usability
> problems.

I tend to agree.   FWIW, note the relationships between that
observation about obscure mailing lists and my December 27
posting about "Fundamental changes in IETF discussions?".

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email