Re: Please welcome the facilitators at

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 11 November 2016 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F99B1295C4 for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:19:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.744
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.744 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=wc7tmjB/; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=B7thmFSq
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eAF0aRXcCdyp for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:19:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D71D1294BB for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:19:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uAB1JQ3V001532 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:19:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1478827177; x=1478913577; bh=/JtTjHwv4j6kNJg+jbgLmLyWEzX22Y2R2bth7Wldyz8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=wc7tmjB/+nLVPIfMVO5a9lg4kPd0dC1PeHZDABLNLQufnsTzx1GzliCqZdmj+aUAh W+50z4H3pWTno2RqmEa7c7c3PZhRB77cTzyr8UTS1UkK6/73NtMTvurTcapE9IQaOB e75mGK6vSlIGTqN0oYKAWSGUwDqj6xrBbwLLrnT8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1478827177; x=1478913577;; bh=/JtTjHwv4j6kNJg+jbgLmLyWEzX22Y2R2bth7Wldyz8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=B7thmFSqM/1MxngrJx1pAQdXq9xCkXne6CzelMFfcsF4HJl2V8bb/AbnrJOuLZmKN vFS3gLa5C7rrptbvdvQuU9yWLHeIzV+XF4heIqkRc9kI+C9YPpXhQddayzGhgQLh1K Q377xYEq71yT8k5EEdd+pqWHTFJS7y2NRARggkQw=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:04:10 -0800
To: John C Klensin <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: Please welcome the facilitators at
In-Reply-To: <007F7CEB7E42D5ED7E79D16F@JcK-HP8200>
References: <> <> <> <1E4B9FCC33CE88788FE4E5E3@JcK-HP8200> <> <007F7CEB7E42D5ED7E79D16F@JcK-HP8200>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 01:19:40 -0000

Hi John,
At 05:53 10-11-2016, John C Klensin wrote:
>That is consistent with the point I was trying to make.  Part of
>what I understood you to say was that the role, as currently
>defined, was taking up too much time as compared to value and
>your and Melinda to suggest that there weren't a lot of cases in
>which it was likely to be particularly effective.  I think there

As this is an experiment I provided some data so that Jari can draw a 
conclusion.  The time taken was more about providing information for 
the next person volunteering for the task, or a similar task.

>is still potential value in the general concept and in
>mechanisms that were lighter-weight and more about focusing
>discussions, reducing repetition, and educating participants
>than the Sergeant at Arms procedures.   If so, or we want to
>carry out _that_ experiment, the right next step is to reduce
>the workload to be more proportionate to both need and acutal

The experiment was light-weight, i.e avoid getting to Sergeant at 
Arms procedures.  Thanks for commenting about the potential value in 
the general concept.

>That said, the one thing I wish you had done but didn't (and may
>not have had the mandate to do) was to post those summaries with
>enough confidence, and presumption of community backing, to be
>able to say "these subthreads have been noted, continuing to
>post on them without adding anything new will be considered
>disruptive and turned over to the Sergeant at Arms".

I would be going beyond the experiment if I attempted to restrict a 
subscriber from posting more messages which did not contain new 
information.  It would also be at odds with the experiment being light-weight.

S. Moonesamy