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

Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com> Wed, 15 January 2025 19:15 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 69A57C151096 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:15:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.856
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.856 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ihdT1IN-T_QS for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:15:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (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 8E410C14F615 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:15:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-540218726d5so136823e87.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:15:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736968549; x=1737573349; 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=zDyyrA21CLkPO6ZIxRnsmRR+tGFBrJDMZAZMYKXczjg=; b=Gb9/OU7XkIw3ZChWSAjyJ8RICjj6J/2bqfm5zfzFhuwo1+Mxt3vbSQhxeQKpyJX+70 23gzUmixZEMama4yj/pXSas0unRvDpvXGLX7w4Nk//yQ+MhdoWrAxgZuzl0z1ZFo3z1U DJ7m9lvp8UgFWIMQ3Di1NANOhzjRXrU++H90k50lCeV+IGS5N777sNrJC+LqhF0pcdnH xQgpK1fodcVCy3AyzEgreLbPvOlhDW7gmzrfL/5ePnsYt/CG28OBXOGZmu2+Tgi+4pZ+ sUQIDE2SPZ3FdNh2TWtlQiFKOY8pDQh/xDhE9ywOqeMPlPWXC8tqyV0mDGtKvO5hbJ6G V+TQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736968549; x=1737573349; 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=zDyyrA21CLkPO6ZIxRnsmRR+tGFBrJDMZAZMYKXczjg=; b=AcsVU68unjPIteyugSX39lb0/Vj4Djwo3RtsPaaVBSNrjgAO2maVsiAmRnHCWJNoyB QLUX7QbhlOfTKjr1VLEcGT0QBGBKVYnEF//TZOnQ/rccgKtHTMk1MnTGfIV6yPZDIApF BUmyAg1K7+sdbZocjeTwLgVbgyZF/Kj85pyqmrtcb+bEOf9Aun5MgRsf5q/4Bubrwar/ Gk07aqH0l7TJbEAlPq/X0Mru9GJkATt5ZC1bff+6DIszC+HHK36dEGRMI4LfYxHro+MI kLhsiJYgbImQqmQOpquVPxnrHT6xTSM2sdJBz3L81zqyVVgTul3LOD7g6bS+/ektNQqr TzwQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV/+1cP/66CIZcL0tNOA8CVwBFezsbmsE+WqSSu9WjtmIRf5cA7QAgezQdaznLvMjK3kSk=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwUa6gLOUxoFgm3gWwcd5V0El6nXT/68mVufesnJJaCwwvxsoSw G5LzqokHkut3V39PjRcx0Ex8RllsEZfUWYsmgz6INpPtu+yYO40xB8OFdaFFjGbEvp1goE/vAWu DIguhumGpOCZf9WqHlAOg5niP3h4=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvEpKxM0x5E7GIAeWecI3uuU7ThXZPWBbW0I1miw0KVpyMjQm7YlPMVV78gFtH dDqkL/zXOl8NVrpQCQK4oeLqHQsZKz2kyg8p8MhvEQccyfKHPwA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFZnvEyXHC84ZyoV2ptftGo/D+0ouSCm9JbCwBZTtqG4HQcAGY8HRg2uVhxEGbO+BvP8C0luedabNgl2sYZz4A=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:39d3:b0:542:6333:d202 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-542845af174mr10125618e87.3.1736968548538; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:15:48 -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>
In-Reply-To: <IA1PR21MB3425DE93CCA9A2963E6A9FB88C192@IA1PR21MB3425.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
From: Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 14:15:31 -0500
X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvZsfC7OTHOIvvu9NzRp6TZD01frCD8_0rC48wue9JhOi8x8NHNRDyboKI8
Message-ID: <CAE3-qLQpeyja9gTOj-w+xfGL4CrCD1xGpWsK22yHL+OSZ1aezg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000526767062bc38168"
Message-ID-Hash: DYJNHF4UUX5PHYASF6HO76OWXJX4MRFQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: DYJNHF4UUX5PHYASF6HO76OWXJX4MRFQ
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" <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/eGaGyhcE3spFUwuuWeBjgY6nL8I>
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 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
>
>