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

Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com> Wed, 15 January 2025 23:26 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 A471DC169410 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:26:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.857
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.857 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 9ldCUJvnSXHS for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:25:59 -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 3A081C15106E for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:25:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-53df80eeeedso352106e87.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:25:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736983557; x=1737588357; 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=EGLZ+4HXx+WzmSpIfm6/t4Ojw+SBYoC0LYSYEeObWQ8=; b=RIrsy0tQNnpAvElrI4fmpwANPXO1Mx0ByH94tWJ2VyDmUnV3VCVuHGHvnO5xABXMYF ibSm+6rMAphExnzx1e0alI3vCYz3ConvLnmCUsxlHTpHu1xWfBQ0orT/NokINZ6R2A6L ru3w+OFv5mNvzkia5JcqP0oyswUTVYRPhbgHtJCOL/7ji/QWssjApRe1qa1QUW/9RdNy 72mr9BJSZzOkDA8pDcpyYM6v63HWq1JFsd+tpfiDXSLXTinUd8kBdI8qJ6Kk1o8YDI35 cPeGPgjUdqSxfBsOyEW2LBWYdQtR2XRmiuX/BB3kvD2BAG5+3Qxs7+hg0vFaUOXn3cm6 Anmg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736983557; x=1737588357; 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=EGLZ+4HXx+WzmSpIfm6/t4Ojw+SBYoC0LYSYEeObWQ8=; b=lo1U+F2PQrT8gy0lwTCj4QZcH2rvD6vZtdaDC1KYEHG6IYQi6lcxm4IzjY1CdlErTC sMl1xx7UmsfadmIw1f9ArI635l8Q/vCiEz+AUO1PoEUCJEuDbXUluNMMYWlTB9wG+fEh gjhz6UrDovycCC4YO0Wh0CZFGtCcRJeovqqZoQ8HKsFRa4PfZtU15NAVQz1CPpKH9mv0 hN9thOAyUkjWv71tv1Zj1BEtkTSNtUGn45WUIOricDOc6kBqUmGIH3Z1l+ucvyPJvw3H D8UsqWR6LquqxTxuzuc1o3uJ+0VL/KfujJ0hx+P0bTB4hL6BESIdNhvGGQRZlvrPEuWa takQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUc0tAQKP/tFEoUPF+zKoLQGmHiwOi2850vo348QQ/T7i7HsE2Wwsla8wnCJpTaQgE+rM4=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyyYWIToj1fmr/7RB44E9poXPDGZ8DUvjV83ludQ+S6Le896xKt hHeqju+tNcR3rG44C/4fPYV+c1B4KXrDW9xie79NbjvgQdAKP2BuurVgI1+fa8TEUZDrG6DKEMp llWoJAYxk2bWGq0osZAp4FzL4o4Y=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuH9WPdT7IkgjN7dqihwuee6xCvqIl+FujiuLFCHMVgFldcAjg9WvxIkH6zY4R q73wieq3DnfbdZgwSqmzqlRPLb2tJZohkGwOV4Hk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGizrj0dF4YlokbEDjHjbWJg3TphucbeVjvH5FK7KCyjVBJ0G43Y6fCvdSRghZzxNBQ0pdHgR5chbA0s7kWdwk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:a96:b0:540:1f7d:8bce with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-542845b9744mr8629449e87.38.1736983557173; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:25:57 -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 18:25:39 -0500
X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvYLh8ySR_UtqhO1z9DDB4dEg9lXtUJL-1pqYha2fLw60mNVAtNmWEjjCWQ
Message-ID: <CAE3-qLQtrEd3a_NtFiL5PSJh8FhFXHqW-5OrqP8xSjzTfNoAaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e7fa5b062bc6ffe2"
Message-ID-Hash: AWBRO3BZDLHZ3JODW2ZTXKNAWHDVITBG
X-Message-ID-Hash: AWBRO3BZDLHZ3JODW2ZTXKNAWHDVITBG
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/n0ruFFk-iKPKk4gwX5j1v424KJ0>
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 2:45 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 have seen 2 or 3 as being "others" in your message.


> 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.
>
>
>
> Also, the general idea of voting to pick the best course of action for
> complicated technical matters seems questionable.
>

I recommend you to re(read) my first email.  The chairs start a discussion
of a technical matter, later at a meeting, if the chairs think that the
matter has been well discussed and understood enough, the chairs start for
a consensus call (votes). It is basically the same with what is going on
right now.


> There is no minimum technical qualification requirement or process for the
> IETF attendees.
>

Do you want to test someone's qualifications before they are allowed to
vote or their voice can have any value ?  The chairs can ask the
participants to provide the reason(s) for their vote.

Regards,
Quynh.


>
> 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
>
>