ietf@ietf.org is a failure (was: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org)

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sat, 08 June 2013 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 5C5DA21F9632 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3jHLDkO4F05o for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5531521F9600 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r58Jl1Ww027183; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1370720826; bh=Mc1lHVcs1IWNQMuAdwevvHtrBi17aZylrTPV/tEFjS0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=xVBe3Sw6eKEZuaNiQUibqyg6xANCS/na+0EcPPHsNdWDA5KngUb42UIPyVKgCfyA2 JP8pGC+69mzvrqthHX+wqQyBnBw64++NuXZmhEfNh+bH3hwnPd9dFIg6wjmJymOWUv fZ2cIe0Y0kkbE7tnOWxNfp/08CVxecSwAlD0wBu0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1370720826; i=@resistor.net; bh=Mc1lHVcs1IWNQMuAdwevvHtrBi17aZylrTPV/tEFjS0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Z8pNcZE0joYd25D96ub58oPZojBQr71e6eWuV0DcxXkPaCcD1hReaSlp2ORlYLUGL xQaWDdv/mfh9AtKsijVlhk+ZvkpkX6oi+1r33lYp5GeQmV5VOVG98ZUNYSM6jytOU/ sQjkaOTQEJeyiBNpcgqraKS947fnJNs78Eok0i14=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130608092332.0cb80b58@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:09:04 -0700
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: ietf@ietf.org is a failure (was: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org)
In-Reply-To: <710CFEA093055148BDE84DEC@[10.121.6.76]>
References: <201306070453.r574r3Wt010088@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> <CADnDZ89FjyPtvJQSqY+kmX+1KYkc0jo1mRpOgkfcEnTH6Vbg6A@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA462@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <201306071449.r57EnN5N008971@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <CABCOCHSkLj0409hyeqKNdomOdrScYypi_7a1xWqMEUV9eTPuCw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA801@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1306070901590.4180@egate.xpasc.com> <201306071651.r57Gp9Sf028501@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7E35BCF0-B218-4A72-82E3-309320113D6A@gmail.com> <710CFEA093055148BDE84DEC@[10.121.6.76]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 19:47:09 -0000

At 15:58 07-06-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
>And it is getting to that conclusion from the above that often
>troubles me about the posting summary list rankings.  Assuming a
>significant issues shows up on the list, whether in conjunction
>with a Last Call or something else.  Posting a comment and then
>following up the comments of others with a couple of more
>postings constitutes three messages in a week, which is pretty
>reasonable.  On the other hand, if there are four such issues in
>a single week (it happens) then that same individual gets
>"credited" with a dozen messages, which would make the top of
>the list in many weeks.

I'll reuse some text from IETF 55:

  - Decisions are taken by backroom deals, intimidation and
    mob psychology

  - People unsubscribe in disgust in droves

Many years ago the following criticism was made against another body:

   "The process is stacked in favour of multinationals with expense accounts
    who can afford to talk on the phone for two hours a week and jet to world
    capitals for meetings."

The IESG once said that it prefers that comments on Last Calls be 
sent to the ietf@ietf.org list.  The IESG also said that authors, 
working group Chairs and the responsible Area Director are presumed 
to see all such messages.

Is posting the summary list ranking a form of intimidation?  I don't 
know.  If ietf@ietf.org is a failure as significant issues are not 
showing up on the list (see quoted text above) or if the IESG prefers 
that comments on Last Calls be sent to some other list it can say 
that.  If people unsubscribing in droves is a problem, the IESG could 
recommend having two hour phone calls a week and meetings in world 
capitals for Last Calls.  If the IESG believes that it is more 
practical to take decisions through backroom deals it can use a 
non-public list for handling Last Calls.

If a significant number of people cannot act or conduct themselves in 
a proper way, especially toward others, it is a social problem.  If 
people cannot filter the ietf@ietf.org mailing list, it is a 
technical problem.  The IETF has published a specification which 
describes a language for filtering email messages at time of final 
delivery.  After reading the latest messages to the list I might conclude that:

  (i)   people do not know about the mail filtering language

  (ii)  people are having technical difficulties using email

  (iii) it might rain tomorrow

As an off-topic comment, there are are alternative ways in making a 
decision; the best judgement of the most experienced or IETF Consensus.

Regards,
-sm