Re: [Txauth] consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and Delegation"

Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Fri, 15 May 2020 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD10E3A080C for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VS4NJoh4pgaA for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 078623A07F8 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id g1so3859469ljk.7 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GsYNjgcm3nswFMDgZR0Ua0vIZyPKZTa+tumKmz9vikA=; b=l+zt+MmewpMBkUIOFCH9Ix0DLXmkxBA4Y3Gu4GEPUEFsXo0ZqewcmBSC9rLC0vu9X1 hQH2DjqqxLRj5iXMyHYHhr+1W74eXH7UxyyiLuDaIAImXbSG8wYFOMJescKkrGw3lTMW NEcEtxbzGrBjAcyuKZqmlvL7Iq9EuhBz2HO26v93cGECDddAartEoLi9O4LHwoi59ZAK cAEfB4V0dvn5VJF8I20/R/COHGgMuP1vnqp+4BT5Plbnb0wxr36/B87xLf2jAJIRvGoM IQUctvqDnQcHQl246B2w7OU6ASAa40fZwM4bSuXX6l+Hp080dX6L/HLDIT4cP++kTfvY goTA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GsYNjgcm3nswFMDgZR0Ua0vIZyPKZTa+tumKmz9vikA=; b=o8keb94cjGn3etKvJag35NuIN+vermHaygDTScvPQefDtdXEizUSXSowqVMeq7OEqC ym6oYLNtNpCifB34i7JEybMI+DAFJke4QQKZSEETE/VeL+888eBMxzEqnYCsMkkk+5AT B3xQbSdyDB9bgP4hjtdYgzkvCbMfye9wwzeB0iIQiiX0SR/CWcRzSH3AGINy06Te5B5S zoWvLqMtBx9lfcMNQ286/XMBkWpRkyE2nHJSIaMDe4T4j80S5KarSyyzeimTFlgPd8z5 FCUtASpaafnpUY3AfH14tpwSuqON2owQrhYorY+niUl/uE0HALoQdGsZmSu+0GPwh+u2 8QkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Ci8ygF8GFOSL4IfyGMrKprFTVhAHcSavD7n6y2t/xZD3vgM/F S77cewmjEC45VQo5uufqJ9dGhKObp3i4LpxXt9sC2Zk6
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9wJBDgVlDlO66CeMP6j/hCY7N3DnSnaVVZ675aJI0kC2uyweVHPOs6n0buuXqr5TdKhxqYla11fWnCdDf2T4=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b891:: with SMTP id r17mr3586178ljp.34.1589581238084; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD9ie-sCJ+Nf0QFZLUWqRo3MCibrO9eKUj3zj_3Y1zXdfWOugA@mail.gmail.com> <943EF8E5-6F25-4E2A-907B-1333ABA112F6@mit.edu> <CAD9ie-tDQDMpYFrQk9Mb-_Nof5aiJ6iLZDbTu0LX3_hwSCMDtg@mail.gmail.com> <e744a5fe268f4e2380db23a092da4fc7@cert.org> <85A51BAA-EF86-49F5-ABB4-C332AE82DEAA@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <85A51BAA-EF86-49F5-ABB4-C332AE82DEAA@mit.edu>
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 15:20:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD9ie-unev887EeXxEMeikE1a7yeZX_gLzy_unUw+A4J72rJwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
Cc: "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>, "rdd@cert.org" <rdd@cert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000009a9b505a5b739e0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/IskyJ5Nobj4CgJfTqn34WGO3Ut4>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and Delegation"
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <txauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/txauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:txauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 22:20:43 -0000

Justin: are you saying you have concerns with [3]? Do you have an
alternative proposal?

FWIW: if the actual results had been what you posted below, I would have
rerun the poll with less dots per person to see if we would get to have
rough consensus on one name. I would not consider those results below to be
consensus.

Additionally, with the significantly larger number of voters compared to
previous votes, and the large number that all voted the same, together
indicated the poll was being gamed. It is not possible to know which votes
where legit, and which were not, which is why the conclusion was to call
the poll spoiled.



ᐧ

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 3:02 PM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:

> Thanks for the transparency, Roman. And thanks to Dick for providing the
> logs.
>
> I did a quick analysis of the results myself. I went through cleaned up
> the log file a little (there were some mixed spaces and tabs that made
> automatic parsing difficult) and disambiguated the several expansions of
> different names:
>
> TXAuth1: Truly eXtensible Authorization
> TXAuth2: Testable eXtensible Authorization
> TxAuth3: Transmission of Authority
> TIDYAuth1: Transference via Intent Driven Yield Auth
> TIDYAuth2: Trust via Intent Driven Yield Auth
>
> By removing every entry where all five points were awarded to TxAuth:
> Transmission of Authority, and tallying all others (including votes for
> other entries that had all five points awarded by one voter but to a
> different option), we get the following results:
>
> Totals:
> TxAuth3: 42
> TXAuth1: 25
> GNAP: 20
> PAuthZ: 19
> TXAuth2: 12
> TINOA: 9
> TIDYauth2: 8
> CTAP: 7
> NIRAD: 6
> ZAuthZ: 6
> GranPro: 4
> TIAAP: 4
> AZARAP: 4
> TIDYauth1: 3
> ReAuthZ: 3
> DIYAuthZ: 3
> IDPAuthZ: 2
> TIDEAuth: 2
> TIEAuth: 2
> RefAuthZ: 2
> BeBAuthZ: 2
> AZARP: 1
> DAZARAP: 1
> AAuthZ: 1
> BYOAuthZ: 1
> CPAAP: 1
>
> As you can see, the winner of the poll is :still: overwhelmingly
> “Transmission of Authority”, even with all of these entries removed. I’ll
> note that this does not include the last seven votes that came in the last
> couple days, so these results are skewed even then.
>
> To be clear, I don’t think it’s fair to throw out all such votes, but
> since they are what’s suspect here I felt it important to see the results
> just those removed and see if it told a different story. It does not, and I
> think that indicates the consensus is actually still pretty clear.
>
> I am attaching both the cleaned-up log file as well as the quick python
> script that I wrote to do the analysis of the results, please check for any
> errors or inconsistencies.
>
>  — Justin
>
>
> On May 15, 2020, at 5:46 PM, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Full transparency here -- the chairs definitely consulted me with their
> concerns about the poll and with the logs before announcing the results
> [1].  I re-reviewed the logs [2].  It shows around vote #16 – 41, there is
> a number of entries where all votes assigned to a single choice (“TxAuth
> Transmission of Authority: 5”).  Observations (by Dick) of the incoming
> results, pinned these votes in a narrow time window.  Likewise, most of all
> of the other entries split their 5 ballots.  Could that be overwhelming
> support in the community?  Absolutely!  However, the lack of precise
> timestamps and IPs makes it hard to judge in this non-traditional scenario
> for selecting names.
>
> We’re going to have to live with this choice – names matter – and I don’t
> want any sense of skew to linger.  We tried an experiment using a tech that
> allows anonymous input (i.e., Decido) – it didn’t work (no fault of the
> tech).  Let’s do it the old fashion way on the mailing list.  If you have
> objections to [3], please raise your concern.
>
> We’re not in the voting business.  If we end up with two options that are
> “close”, we’re going to talk a little more.  Prior to final selection, WG
> chairs and I will also listen for objections to the name that the mailing
> list feedback suggested.
>
> I appreciate everyone patience.  I too would like to have a name chosen so
> we can get the charter advanced.  However, we’re going to do this name
> selection again so we can all have confidence in the process.
>
> Regards,
> Roman
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/sDG3PJI2FHbeGefW8OqJP1NNqLU/
> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/0BjvqbFk-K3MCqcx388etFzFPz8/
> [3]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/2_oF41Zbfj_-qkkLXo7HwLnMk68/
>
> *From:* Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2020 5:04 PM
> *To:* Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
> *Cc:* txauth@ietf.org; Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Txauth] consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and
> Delegation"
>
> Justin: if you have a concern with how I am chairing the group, the
> appropriate action would be to bring it up with the AD (cc'ed). FYI: I had
> forwarded the log and my conclusions to Roman, and he had agreed that the
> poll had been gamed.
>
> As to my proposal of "Authorization and Delegation", I took the name you
> had proposed, and removed the adjective that people had found concerning. I
> was hoping that a bland name would be acceptable and we could move on to
> the actual work -- but that does not seem to be the case.
>
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 1:16 PM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> -1
>
> I think the results of the poll were pretty conclusive and it’s not an act
> of good faith for the chair to propose a poll and then throw out the
> results of that same poll and go with something of their own choosing
> instead.
>
> How are you sure that it’s one person stuffing the ballot box? For my
> part, I put two dots on the winning title and one dot each of three others.
> I had a couple different people contact me off-list and told me they’d put
> their five dots on Transmission of Authority. So I think it’s reasonable to
> believe that’s the actual result, without examining the logs myself.
>
>  — Justin
>
> > On May 15, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Following on from my email wrt. the results of voting, please indicate
> if you are aligned with calling the working group the "Authorization and
> Delegation" working group with a +1 or -1.
> > --
> > Txauth mailing list
> > Txauth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>
>
>