[TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation

Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com> Wed, 15 January 2025 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <quynh97@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC65C1E56D7 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:22:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.858
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.858 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wrBzaIsgpCuV for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:22:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48D15C1E643A for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:21:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-54025432becso248709e87.1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:21:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736972514; x=1737577314; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hzO6IG50opHrSp+AQCzKXfx0KydvmE+grOF15FQLTj0=; b=k22hbX7PjibSrbyZpqYcrSOXL4cv72KNmiufbU8LqsFmoIIaGk5SDt1b96sAymv6ll ABj13jiwXg/WHjWyZ8uXRnj0DDyQk5zo6l0RPyRzZcv875GI0H6Wn+9q+0TpWBtT8sNr yn1Kyo+ZPi0QDh298CM47RRei9FQ6gzcvxmP7Z7OiOrqYNn3611PlmzVMRnLmq9zRB/y LLHvAJ18P40RqSlgn8+VIc3nXc/tcXTksuCChe7GVN3o7sPLhlwo74MDoY8R6t1KMjpJ 2HebylzIjwmhyh/2IYiCJAvHK7XhnEqGrZNAXeKpc1O0S0aKoiq81yrBvlsv13q0RoDw cLBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736972514; x=1737577314; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=hzO6IG50opHrSp+AQCzKXfx0KydvmE+grOF15FQLTj0=; b=tpjkGKafap2avqRcYt+yW3OvJFEifTj/BIFRMyxSRbfhxUDDzExen/hJKxWbq3aNeW oMqCw7Xt8lPXj9f1iJdv2JSTx09nupdWzlaXYlvqF5XmIB5ONanOd8KGxmn49P9KuZoF bUwEE/xTZVUHOL1zVxs4eHM2EqsWXX/9xlogkomaaXm3IVicP4K5es4htKgz9FG2WEe4 0kIg6xl+xLfmKNCaMeLNP4SHcfSaEBqO7gYTqV/zaPZB8DIy0fHkSqSHrbtt5g659skj gNMmX2p0iHPp4TiI9Pu4MOSIMSNXM1zPfBif5YU/LE37SP4ZH23T4+1x4PrTt1FVQzQM SUxA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUoZdyqeSvh8+eiy5pdYU21Kt40qnM12sNiCkdcZLb/aP1kdf6sQXt5ijhWl81Icfnc/S4=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxv3/bj9i5StUQUogD6OivvL+HVnpqXolMrIZM0Dcoz26vC5KGj 7NvoZJ29G9mNhFVik5Qa/+5x4+fmImAClL1IlJ+nUF3XWO9ExYnZ14kTrcGfPO28UjUCtc2Awox d9s5p/RmWttU/ieYU3Jny11AA+as=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvCYVjULNEtr4S/Z3Ug6nnotzkDSy1mzlhtGz77bvLoRf8MAf0OrAtFd4D05Ut QJenYalK7h+nWnbnNZYJ09+OG10MmAIawERgM
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGluD5m9qtJO1AszuBdOLM1mP8pCEDGzoD2WjPrxUJbHZygTCu0Hob5cUCvVzh3iZRRVzkRtNTh0coib6NfRGY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3087:b0:540:1fb5:3f9f with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-542845bc8d9mr10144004e87.47.1736972513804; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:21:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAE3-qLSe_KU2HkGu-LBGpmF=in4ZHKzotXRQMrO_AfYFv8pNrA@mail.gmail.com> <20250115163905.447729.qmail@cr.yp.to> <CAE3-qLS2462ThM5UVTJ_NukYEXAjR4teBhdNityj+acmqzueXg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iv2mVBnXLe9wGgQmDHvSMuxT_HmBgOh03wjJ7+9cZe-Yw@mail.gmail.com> <CAE3-qLSX4=AXYPxL8M-ji9WU=T5WPN8N3q7NZXmB5ytt+7yOwg@mail.gmail.com> <IA1PR21MB3425084AAA09DEE4A833E8B48C192@IA1PR21MB3425.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <CAE3-qLSYknL_cbEcEnfRJcTTw=uef64UDtSwX2ckajMPHhC25g@mail.gmail.com> <IA1PR21MB3425DE93CCA9A2963E6A9FB88C192@IA1PR21MB3425.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <CAE3-qLQpeyja9gTOj-w+xfGL4CrCD1xGpWsK22yHL+OSZ1aezg@mail.gmail.com> <IA1PR21MB34255B9A0E0600EBC0309C7D8C192@IA1PR21MB3425.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <IA1PR21MB34255B9A0E0600EBC0309C7D8C192@IA1PR21MB3425.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
From: Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:21:44 -0500
X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvaeimcVM2eAEKaa5RLY26hhkqWeykbA8F6-d3lAVfKPwsps15cCZNKIieM
Message-ID: <CAE3-qLTtOjAdRWfZERfwWxcWrin7g9Z3oTLp+iN8XQEwb9yaNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ab8af4062bc46d21"
Message-ID-Hash: PURRWBC7O6UK2KRAKX6MANXOQ276JTMV
X-Message-ID-Hash: PURRWBC7O6UK2KRAKX6MANXOQ276JTMV
X-MailFrom: quynh97@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/4xj9jvrw5njCJbQMIKQHaog9T3k>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025, 2:45 PM Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>
>    - I started with some change suggestions for you to consider
>
> Understood; the suggestion that consensus should be determined at the
> meetings has been opposed by others, I don’t need to repeat the arguments.
>
> Even as an employee of a large business, I cannot rely solely on the
> (increasingly more expensive) meeting attendance to participate in the IETF
> consensus process.
>
One can pay for 1 day participation to join in a meeting, see my second
email on this thread.

Regards,
Quynh.

>
>
> Also, the general idea of voting to pick the best course of action for
> complicated technical matters seems questionable. There is no minimum
> technical qualification requirement or process for the IETF attendees.
>
>
>
> I agree that as things stand, there is some level of WG chair discretion
> in determining consensus; I believe the chairs are doing a good job of
> this, in general.
>
And I say this even though I’ve been in the rough quite a few times😊
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Andrei
>
>
>
> *From:* Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2025 11:16 AM
> *To:* Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
> *Cc:* Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>; tls@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 2:08 PM Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>    - Did you mean the number of people attending a particular meeting ?
>
> My understanding is that consensus is not determined by meeting
> participants; it’s always determined on the mailing list. Are you
> suggesting that a certain minimum percentage of mailing list subscribers
> have to be in favor?
>
>
>
> I have not been talking about how the current consensus process works. I
> started with some change suggestions for you to consider.  Please read my
> first email(s) first.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quynh.
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Andrei
>
>
>
> *From:* Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2025 11:01 AM
> *To:* Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
> *Cc:* Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>; tls@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation
>
>
>
> You don't often get email from quynh97@gmail.com. Learn why this is
> important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 1:50 PM Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> In the absence of a roster of participants, how can a percentage of votes
> be determined?
>
> We don’t have WG membership registrations, AFAIK.
>
>
>
> Did you mean the number of people attending a particular meeting ?
> Requiring them to sign in using the online tools. For the people who
> don't sign and they attend another meeting, they can send their IETF
> registration for that day or for the whole week to the chairs and their
> votes can be cast within a week or so after the IETF ends.
>
>
>
> That would be an easy task I think and I don't think we should talk about
> it now.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quynh.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Andrei
>
>
>
> *From:* Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2025 10:44 AM
> *To:* Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
> *Cc:* tls@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation
>
>
>
> You don't often get email from quynh97@gmail.com. Learn why this is
> important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 1:26 PM Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2025 at 11:37:58 AM, Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Defining a minimum percentage of votes to have  the consensus would take
> care of the problem and the chairs at the IETF would love that.
>
>
>
> No it wouldn’t
>
>
>
> Why do you think it wouldn't take care of the problem I described?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quynh.
>
>
>
> and no we (speaking as former co-chair of two WGs) wouldn’t.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure why we’re relitigating the works-pretty-OK process of
> consensus calls from the chair and potential appeals.
>
>
>
>  -T
>
>