Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: unbearable

Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4465C1A87AA; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:04:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C1NUZnnqqRC7; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:04:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22c.google.com (mail-qa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 534501A87E9; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:04:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id i13so953053qae.17 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:04:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vR6BBdXCAawOHaxc0mhhHvpkwv5ktVUZ9HlgfYU8TsE=; b=xlqC/9UBuT0TTpWtSg5WNVscE3rqm97bYIcRBIr9mWT468s9A3saZwSAFBhrvS3jaF gpRd4pUhBHD7hJPsvOfqoXJvbH+iR3Ur9k7Y/jjt3aKhmkCB5CcxF01Z99ENgT9VCS7V R95i5BUSUk5hBI4nri9964je5/8teXRfCLumihCSS4jBQItIwXBD3ZCtNT6Qr7Wr56dD /bq84cQ5oS/9OZ06n4zE0sNMSiJRxcfh51rfmli0l7p6GqWzQt91QSpxHXVpjf4JuS7j ApCtFTirtS3RCiwupFV5MkAsGGKISs/jwEQdLHfP8vNzvTnRkrf1lUehEaJOxxYkwxUy mwGw==
X-Received: by 10.140.87.71 with SMTP id q65mr237602qgd.67.1418155440283; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:04:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.54] (107-0-5-6-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.0.5.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b17sm2026918qah.35.2014.12.09.12.03.58 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:03:59 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: unbearable
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6879732352761546BE6A01C9@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:03:57 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3C09209D-98E6-466B-A68C-2626FD6ED74A@gmail.com>
References: <20141205191820.4189.348.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <78D3914CE51C76BA75D82940@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20141209173638.GD12979@localhost> <6879732352761546BE6A01C9@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MWPNJcLZJWYNSoFxV-vaQOdCqGk
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 09 Dec 2014 20:04:04 -0000

On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:30 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:36 -0600 Nico Williams
> <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 02:49:41PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> As a member of or sympathizer with various societies for bear
>>> encouragement and preservation (black, brown, polar, Cub
>>> Scouts, Teddy, Pooh, ... in no particular order), I find this
>>> name really objectionable.  From the description,
>>> "unbearerable" might have been better, "betterbearer"
>>> certainly would have been.
>> 
>> If the outcome is intended to be proof-of-possession
>> extensions that render bearer token schemes
>> no-longer-bearer... then "unbearable" seems better than
>> "betterbearer", though I agree with you that "unbearable"
>> comes across as potentially insulting.  Maybe we should all be
>> thick- skinned[*] enough to get the joke and move on, but:
>> 
>>> I wonder if anyone has ever appealed a mailing list name.
>> 
>> The risk here is that key participants might simply... ignore
>> it until it's too late.  I think the AD can probably do some
>> promotion to try to avoid such an outcome.
> 
> Nico,
> 
> I was trying to keep the complaint light and at least slightly
> humorous, but I am concerned that we seem to often choose names
> for passing amusement value that later turn out to cause
> confusion, bad attitudes or worse.  Those reactions sometimes
> occur in communities who are not normally visible in the IETF.
> It may also be that my periodic involvement with the collection
> of policy, strategy, organizational, administrative, and
> regulatory issues that are mischaracterized as "Internet
> governance" (more outside the IETF than inside) has left me
> oversensitive, but I've had to listen to discussions --in
> obvious and not-so-obvious places-- in which the IETF is
> dismissed as a bunch of small children who are too impressed by
> their own cleverness and busy and  with activities like
> self-congratulatory giggling about their latest in-joke or
> esoteric debate about things that make no difference to be taken
> seriously.  
> 
> Independent of how important those reactions actually are, with
> the sorts of discussions going on that have been represented
> here by the Internetgovtech and IANAPlan efforts, various
> clusters of countries trying to impose their own views about how
> the Internet should be structured and where those topics should
> be discussed, reviews of IGF and other discussion arrangements
> in progress, etc., it is probably not the best time to exhibit
> how clever we can be about silly names for Working Groups,
> Mailing Lists, or other activities.
> 
> In that context, the risk of an appeal is that it would call
> even more unwanted attention to the topic.

Dear John,

Agreed.  Those within the IETF might be concerned even a simple concept is too politically charged.  Perhaps a mailing-lists "soap-box" might divert distractions without curtailing individual expression.

Regards,
Douglas Otis