Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sat, 15 August 2020 17:23 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 E32003A083E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 10:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TqcQ7zlUeIhr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 10:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79B543A083C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 10:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 07FHMtLU005357 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 15 Aug 2020 13:23:00 -0400
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 10:22:55 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic)
Message-ID: <20200815172255.GR92412@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <6AA0BCBB-D95B-4036-B94D-5E79E7B94D75@ietf.org> <F15E387D-9FDC-4A76-8002-78B85F6D16BE@nohats.ca> <CABcZeBNitWbdPO4Y2WfCzjy10Z+s27px6cGT1uRHmtGHa5iX+Q@mail.gmail.com> <ed227fd5-3277-d7a9-f93d-b259944009d6@huitema.net> <20200814174247.GH92412@kduck.mit.edu> <6.2.5.6.2.20200814133128.07dfe1f8@elandnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20200814133128.07dfe1f8@elandnews.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SYi5WAa2bDR8coW6yGzEuf7Ikig>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 17:23:20 -0000
Hi SM, On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 04:16:14PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Ben, > At 10:42 AM 14-08-2020, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > > The question is, what to do? > > > >The IETF way would seem to be to write up several drafts with various > >proposals and solicit comments. Options could include: > > > >- just shut it down > > The ietf@ list is a reflection of Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc. > > >- rate-limit all posters > > That is technically possible. RFC 6729 was written for this mailing > list. However, it was never implemented. When you say "it was never implemented", is that RFC 6729 itself, or specifically the "written for this mailing list" part? > >- create a new role specifically tasked with deescalation and > > consensus-building > > The following is a definition of a word: "If you say that someone is > [removed], you mean that they are not easily upset by criticism or > unpleasantness." RFC 7154 was rewritten to address the > "unpleasantness" part. The new role option was tested previously: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bozkj693bayoU_tj3aH27_dmje0/ I'm not entirely sure what value eliding the word in question is supposed to provide? I assume that it is "thick-skinned" but I am only guessing. I also don't understand the reference to RFC 7154 being a rewrite to address the "unpleasantness" part, as "unpleasant" does not appear in the diff from RFC 3184 to RFC 7154 (https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=rfc7154&url1=rfc3184), nor does the string "pleasant". Could you also clarify what you mean by "the new role option was tested previously"? The referened message indicates that there had been a proposal for a new "facilitator" role, but I did not see or recall any attempt to actually try out someone in that role. Perhaps you mean that it has been discussed previously but not attempted due to the results of that discussion? > >- your idea here > > - One of the difficulties of having to disclose affiliation is that it > encourages the person to consider whether they would have sent that > content in their workplace. Such a practice would allow a reasonable > person to assess whether the discussion is a "friends and family" affair. > > - This venue is not the ideal venue for debate. It is not the venue for > announcements as there is a list which has been set for that purpose. It > is not the venue to solicit reviews on a draft. It is not a venue to > discuss an ongoing appeal. > > - The primary purpose of the list is for last call comments. Directorate > reviews should be sent to the relevant Area mailing list. Comments to > disagree with or to encourage other subscribers to rebel against the head > of the Area should sent to the Area mailing list. > The formatting suggests that these are intended to be "your idea here" proposals for what the IETF might do, but they mostly seem to be statements relevant for general background as opposed to proposed actions; am I missing something? Thanks, Ben
- Terminology discussion threads IETF Chair
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Lars Eggert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads David Schinazi
- RE: Terminology discussion threads STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Eric Rescorla
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Melinda Shore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Ted Hardie
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Lloyd Wood
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Sergeant-at-Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (CORRECTION) Sergeant-at-Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Masataka Ohta
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Sergeant at Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Martin Duke
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Wendy Seltzer
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Sergeant at Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Ofer Inbar
- RE: Terminology discussion threads STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Michael StJohns
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Sergeant-at-Arms
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Randy Bush
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Melinda Shore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Eric Heflin
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Charlie Perkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Kyle Rose
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Bob Hinden
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nick Hilliard
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Leif Johansson
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads David Schinazi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Keith Moore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Michael StJohns
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Pete Resnick
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Leif Johansson
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Michael StJohns
- Re: Terminology discussion threads S Moonesamy
- SaA Team actions (was: Re: Terminology discussion… John C Klensin
- Re: Terminology discussion threads IETF Chair
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Alissa Cooper
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Richard Barnes
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Paul Wouters
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Martin Thomson
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Melinda Shore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carsten Bormann
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Rob Sayre
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Bron Gondwana
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Paul Hoffman
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Paul Hoffman
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Eric Rescorla
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Christian Huitema
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nadim Kobeissi
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Nico Williams
- Self-moderation Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Self-moderation Mary B
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Mary B
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Keith Moore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic) S Moonesamy
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Jen Linkova
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Jared Mauch
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Dan Harkins
- Re: Terminology discussion threads tom petch
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic) Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Terminology discussion threads (off-topic) S Moonesamy
- RE: Terminology discussion threads Larry Masinter
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carsten Bormann
- Weekly message summaries John Levine
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Fernando Gont
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Warren Kumari
- On plenary functions Eliot Lear
- Re: On plenary functions Carsten Bormann
- Re: Self-moderation Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Self-moderation Warren Kumari
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Miles Fidelman
- Re: Self-moderation John C Klensin
- Re: On plenary functions Jay Daley
- Re: On plenary functions Keith Moore
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Keith Moore
- Re: On plenary functions Carsten Bormann
- Re: Self-moderation Stewart Bryant
- Re: Self-moderation Carsten Bormann
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: Self-moderation John Levine
- Re: On plenary functions Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Self-moderation Warren Kumari
- Re: Self-moderation John C Klensin
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Patrik Fältström
- Re: On plenary functions Eliot Lear
- Re: Terminology discussion threads tom petch
- Re: Terminology discussion threads S Moonesamy
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Jay Daley
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Mary B
- Re: Terminology discussion threads Toerless Eckert
- Re: Terminology discussion threads S Moonesamy
- Re: Weekly message summaries Töma Gavrichenkov