IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: feedback & blog entry

IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> Tue, 24 September 2013 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <chair@ietf.org>
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 A8CCC21F9EB0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 dRFHDNa0s5Ic for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550C221F9E4F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c9a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6674A61AA; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c9a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rNxOUnacpwFD; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:f33:2428:1487:a95a:d017] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:f33:2428:1487:a95a:d017]) by c9a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB7A4A61A9; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Subject: Re: feedback & blog entry
From: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130922084046.0c652ec0@resistor.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:22:24 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <13FB566B-18C4-474C-BE65-D668399B9D10@ietf.org>
References: <2722B4FA-425D-45D7-B307-91D808C49FB3@ietf.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20130922084046.0c652ec0@resistor.net>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:22:29 -0000

SM:

Thanks for the feedback.

> I read the article.  As a comment about the last paragraph, the metric being used is not the best in my humble opinion.

You are referring to attendance and authoring RFCs? I agree, of course. I apologize for using a metric that is, at best, partial. My only defense is that it was what I had easily available :-( I do realise that real engagement from different types of organisations and people and areas of the world goes to far more fundamental issues than showing numbers of people. True involvement and effect is what counts. As we know, that does not necessarily correlate with any particular statistic...

>  Spencer Dawkins made an insightful comment which I would look into if I was looking for a better metric.

Ok. Which comment are you referring to? I'm sorry, too much e-mail to know what you are referring to. I'd be interested in better metrics.

Jari

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status