[TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation

["Dang, Quynh H. (Fed)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

It is sad to know that many people would like to join in the discussions but decide not to do so because of their anticipation of the pain they would get and the time they would need to spend.

There are ways to help the situation.  For example, the chairs could decide to say that 80% agree on something is defined to have the consensus.

The chairs can open a thread to discuss a technical matter then at some point the chairs make a consensus call: yes/no ( reasons not required because it has been discussed already).

One of the things I am concerned about this method is that every email has a vote.

Maybe consensus calls can only be made and completed at the in-person meetings ?

Regards,
Quynh.

From: Filippo Valsorda <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 1:48 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation

2024-10-25 14:30 GMT+02:00 Sean Turner <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
• Repetition of arguments without providing substantive new information
• Requesting an unreasonable amount of work to provide information

Personally, the reason I find the list (and generally the IETF) unwelcoming is that arguments can easily prevail by attrition. Some participants have the time and determination to reply to every email, nitpick every argument, systematically reiterate their position, attack other's positions and motivations, and demand explanation of every assertion, while others don't.

I know at least a few implementers that don't engage with the IETF because they don't have time for all that. Myself I go months without opening the list inbox because I know engaging is a tiny campaign every time.

Two participants sending a dozen emails in support of solution A, and six participants sending one email each in support of solution B can look a lot like there is no consensus, or that there is consensus for solution A, especially if not all objections to solution B are painstakingly addressed.

I think this is what these two points in the reminder are getting at, but I am curious how moderating such behavior would look like, because every individual instance can be defended by arguing (probably at length!) that actually there is new information in each post, or that the amount of work being demanded is perfectly appropriate.

I want to acknowledge this is a common and difficult problem to solve. Famously, Wikipedia suffers from the same pathology. Maybe it's just the downside of open forums and it should be accepted, but if the goal is improving the reputation of the list, I feel there needs to be willingness to engage these behaviors, which will not make everyone happy.