RE: how to contact the IETF

"Ed Juskevicius" <edj.etc@gmail.com> Tue, 10 February 2009 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <edj.etc@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1853A6838 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:32:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VHZJDcRLdKi0 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f11.google.com (mail-qy0-f11.google.com [209.85.221.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA163A6802 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk4 with SMTP id 4so3375017qyk.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:32:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:references:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; bh=QmxiHve58SxK+RalOZiI+UWswBYd8dqH92D/GwNBKE0=; b=W42b/fgBRzWYvOMekn5fJrniaZNVIjU1toYZ5/6bJIEsdb4+KwCNSDwZRRzGl/1NXk 5FNf/q11+CQNr3pOgNMb+W9X9YbIgDO4/hQ6G98wjiIYxDwOzK3mAwXv32sDYd7CZy1e mvzwhDWF8Y+cjlmqTyJGV84AxHL4kR60O2Vo8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:references:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to :thread-index:x-mimeole; b=uM3KhzGujdUQPuDD2pdoLrgBeio4r+sEuU1is806vRGgXK3NcsYddUl4qgWKzheu3F LqmS91jJXjsZcPCp173maDsRqKMmBC9rFkICKQ/iz5h0RmSksUP4KUpg//MZczfGEKlG G9ITCoQxYaLBGADP7H/mZLa9MyFE7JUGfBd8c=
Received: by 10.65.205.16 with SMTP id h16mr1945111qbq.62.1234283552241; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:32:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from noisy (bas3-ottawa23-1088836336.dsl.bell.ca [64.230.82.240]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s12sm130665qbs.9.2009.02.10.08.32.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:32:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Ed Juskevicius <edj.etc@gmail.com>
To: 'Noel Chiappa' <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20090210162107.790276BE5EE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: how to contact the IETF
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:34:59 -0500
Message-ID: <A3D33643F23646759210D66B2DAA4567@noisy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <20090210162107.790276BE5EE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Thread-Index: AcmLm71dwBDfAk50Tn2W5ipiqAc5AAAAOHNg
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:32:32 -0000

Noel wrote:

> Rather than adopt indirect measures (such as requiring people to be 
> registered users of a list), I would go straight to the heart of the 
> matter, and adopt a formal policy that a mass email campaign should
> count _against_ the position taken by that campaign, precisely to
> dis-incentivize such campaigns.

A formal policy would require some clear definition of what a "mass email
campaign" is.  How would/could we draw a line and define that term?

Would 100 people sending more or less the same text to a list in less than
24 hours constitute a mass email campaign?  I would say 'yes'.

What about 50 people over 2 days?  Maybe still 'yes'.

How about 20 people over a week, or 10 people recited the same cut and
pasted text during a longer last-call timeframe?

I am not trying to pour cold water on your idea here, but rather I am
wondering how something like this could be formalized, versus handled as an
exceptional case when and if it occurs.

Regards,

Ed  J.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Noel
Chiappa
Sent: February 10, 2009 11:21 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: how to contact the IETF

    > From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>

    > This means that those "driving by" have to be tolerated, I think.

Ah, no.

Because if organizing an email campaign works for the FSF, next thing you
know, BigCorp X will be telling everyone who works for it 'we want standard
Q
approved, please send email to the IETF list about that'. If we allow
ourselves to be influenced by a mass email campaign, all we are doing is
virtually guaranteeing that we will get more.  So I think we have an active
interest is responding _negatively_ to such campaigns.

Rather than adopt indirect measures (such as requiring people to be
registered
users of a list), I would go straight to the heart of the matter, and adopt
a
formal policy that a mass email campaign should count _against_ the position
taken by that campaign, precisely to dis-incentivize such campaigns.

	Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf