Re: how to contact the IETF

Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com> Tue, 10 February 2009 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mshore@cisco.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 D40A628C21B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:19:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 eLdC-AE8YW4f for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D137728C202 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:19:55 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,187,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="36583866"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2009 15:19:58 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1AFJwuG000841; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:19:58 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1AFJwSH027879; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:19:58 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:19:58 -0500
Received: from 10.98.54.215 ([10.98.54.215]) by xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:19:58 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.0.0.071130
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:19:57 -0500
Subject: Re: how to contact the IETF
From: Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C5B7054D.2F9A%mshore@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: how to contact the IETF
Thread-Index: AcmLkwgn58RJ+z2siUWSvBTLIlyQMg==
In-Reply-To: <20090210142744.GJ13560@shinkuro.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2009 15:19:58.0390 (UTC) FILETIME=[08FB2560:01C98B93]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1431; t=1234279198; x=1235143198; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mshore@cisco.com; z=From:=20Melinda=20Shore=20<mshore@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20how=20to=20contact=20the=20IETF |Sender:=20 |To:=20Andrew=20Sullivan=20<ajs@shinkuro.com>,=20<ietf@ietf .org>; bh=teJEKN45/DUsf7CqBA5vmjpmnpaPOPEMG4rvxsAz/cw=; b=RCx4MAHSoRpkHNQN810yrnglTWIfH6ZmzxRtK57V1r58elMFzrVHjTMVNr spXnQtQhCdSYW2Prqd0TJsobSRNJYC3977EYOc4no38oogbNAvjWze/NWocf ghR0ubfx6R;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=mshore@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
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 15:19:56 -0000

On 2/10/09 9:27 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@shinkuro.com> wrote:
> Sure.  But under such classical consensus decision-making, one knows
> who's in "the group" for the consensus.  The IETF doesn't, because the
> answer to "Who's in the group?" is supposed to be "Who replied on the
> mailing list?"

Well, no, I don't agree with that last bit, in the
sense that I don't think "replied on the mailing list"
really means the same thing as "participated."  And
the stuff we're seeing now isn't really even "replied,"
since it's not a response to discussion here but rather
a bunch of non-participants who are motivated by other
non-participants.  If they're not on the mailing list
they're posting to they are not engaged in the discussion.
You point out that they're going to go away, and I
think that's *exactly* the problem with what they're
doing.

Obviously the IETF cannot do "real" consensus decision-
making and the process is going to be compromised pretty
heavily to support participation by a huge number of
people, not all of whom are equally committed to respecting
the process itself.  I think the question in this case
is whether or not these FSF people are able to block an
IETF decision or action, and my own feeling is that if
they want to influence decisions it's easy to join mailing
lists and join in discussions and they should do that rather
than this drive-by shouting.

Melinda