Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion

Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> Fri, 09 January 2004 20:42 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13841 for <mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:42:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3SW-00069K-MI for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:42:20 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09KgKWa023629 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:42:20 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3SU-00068z-OT for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:42:20 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13748 for <mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:42:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3ST-0004CB-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:42:17 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3QI-0003fm-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:40:04 -0500
Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3MR-0002pQ-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:36:04 -0500
Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af3MR-0004hH-9U for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:36:04 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3MO-0005Rc-Rl; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:36:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Lg-0005NI-Lx for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:35:16 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11747 for <mpowr@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:35:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Lf-0002aW-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:35:15 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Gm-0001GS-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:30:14 -0500
Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af36v-0007AF-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:20:01 -0500
Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09KJWk3072378; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:19:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com)
Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09KJW8J072377; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:19:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:19:32 -0700
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
cc: mpowr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109130255.044b4360@ms101.mail1.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0401091201300.62437@measurement-factory.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109130255.044b4360@ms101.mail1.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>, <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results <mpowr.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpowr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>, <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> But, I was not completely certain whether to place you in the "for"
> or "against" category for purposes of gauging consensus on the idea
> that WG chairs should be allowed to temporarily revoke the posting
> privileges of disruptive participants,

I probably belong to the weird IETF minority that does not necessarily
have a well-formed "for" or "against" opinion at the start of a
discussion. I like to play devils advocate, sometimes against self.
This naturally makes it hard to summarize consensus based on a
unstructured discussion, but Robert complained enough about that
already :-).

> The rest of your most recent post makes it pretty clear that you
> would agree with a set of rules that would allow WG chairs to
> temporarily suspend the posting privileges of disruptive posters,
> with appropriate warnings, AD approval and the possibility of
> appeal.  Is that a fair interpretation?

I agree that the above are basic principles we should built upon.

I would also add "WG rough consensus" as the most important principle.
Since disruptions make forming and gauging consensus difficult, we
have a conflict that we would have to resolve with more fast-acting
power given to either the Chair or the participant in question. The
specifics of the proposal would make this choice clear.

For example, Marshall's draft-mrose-ietf-posting gives more
fast-acting power to the participant while using a long-term
punishment to balance things off. The rules I posted give more
fast-acting power to the Chair while using a short-term punishment.

Marshall's rules essentially assume that the disruption disease is
usually very difficult to identify correctly, and that sick
participants cannot be "cured". The rules I posted assume that most
disruptions are easy to identify, and that sick participants will be
cured by (or die from) a simple treatment. Neither of the assumptions
is going to be 100% true, of course.

Alex.

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr