[TLS] Re: Improving the quality of the discussion on the TLS email list

[Filippo Valsorda <[e-mail]>]

Excellent, sounds like you land at the same result as the chairs when tallying support by all participants. That’s promising!

Then, have you tried tallying support by “pre-existing WG participants or people with demonstrated expertise” using your own methodology? Did you land at a result significantly different from “roughly 7/10”?

Assuming you’re not looking a priori for something to object to, if you come to the same conclusion using your own methodology, I don’t see what good demanding an itemized list would do.

If you do come to a significantly different result, you can share your methodology in your appeal, and let the ADs, IESG, or IAB assess it.

2026-07-31 15:55 GMT+02:00 Tanja Lange <[e-mail]>:
> Dear Eliot, dear all,
> I can tally the emails on list, which were about even in favor and against.
> The chairs announced that by some process of discarding or weighing some votes
> they reach 70% in favor. To quote this verbatim 
> "However, if we look at pre-existing WG                        
> participants or people with demonstrated expertise, roughly 7/10 WG                       
> participants favor advancing the document, which shows rough consensus                    
> to move the document forward."
> The requests I've seen, starting right after the chairs announced their
> decision that there was consensus in favor of the document, are asking for
> which input was discarded or counted higher or lower. I cannot do the
> "homework" of checking this because I don't know the mechanism used. 
> 
> Additionally, the email asking for responses was sent with
> Reply-To: Joseph Salowey <[e-mail]>
> so that replies would go to Joe's address and to the list only if the sender
> chooses to reply to all (or edits the header manually), so there might be some
> emails that didn't go to the list and which therefore I cannot count when doing
> my homework.
> 
> Finally, there are reports of messages not appearing on list despite the
> sender responding with the release code. We have seen some messages containing
> release codes appear on list (I hadn't seen that in any previous discussion).
> My understanding is that the chairs see those, and maybe that's where the
> chairs saw additional support, but I cannot count these in my homework.
> 
> Hence, I would like to support the request for transparency of how the 7/10
> (quoted above) was reached.
> 
> All the best
> Tanja
> 
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 01:02:26PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 31.07.2026 12:37, Ken Kubota wrote:
> > 
> >     There have been repeated requests [1, 2] that the working group chairs release the participant chart/list/table publicly that supports the 70 % claim ("7/10 WG participants favor advancing the document" [3]).
> > 
> > Unnecessary.  All the information used by the chairs is publicly available on
> > this list.  Do your own homework.  Stop making work for others.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>