Re: [Txauth] Txauth Digest, Vol 9, Issue 39

Hankins Parichabutr <hankins.parichabutr@gmail.com> Sat, 16 May 2020 00:43 UTC

Return-Path: <hankins.parichabutr@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 EED763A07B3 for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 17:43:51 -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 4TfR3VU1fo8B for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2020 17:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x933.google.com (mail-ua1-x933.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::933]) (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 100A63A07AA for <txauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 17:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x933.google.com with SMTP id b6so1463665uak.6 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2020 17:43:48 -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; bh=IcATPxcxGmu5spHZwwDib9bKE/fiuS4bST53vEEtb5Q=; b=IqdH3da7XJI75kBQMo1vK5y6B9zltAAp1sdDFxtyPHoPenIoMVuHbN/D2/RUPE4BuB OvZrmB5/EB3oWUi7iMhHpnPYtZA8NiPwEHHBzZaTNYMIeEjJgl+/TZNYCGNZ3I8yj3El bmsBkmBCl31xFZ20tM90pSxml9IBdu/1OkwrtDBnpeAuSL3CULxNiJiNgmSExP8PPeVX Xm92RFXATKWAfQaPVMUdK/RmgJMog2ZNjNUkOoOmb/DOn2xs8IKn8TQv35octOlSEvaT k48IAov7J6nj712LYFIzwCoksjl4K6EHMQUobyN0PrJTwIU/Y+jIvfnffvMUFRoUF01V DClw==
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; bh=IcATPxcxGmu5spHZwwDib9bKE/fiuS4bST53vEEtb5Q=; b=kKsSEAsAp1gLx73trumpkR368v79K0mwsMFLjCmRZsT8IxzWFqzVIUfJ4Xfvfn9ixc 0531XYKuPcZ/SLx/gPVMWHn/iSoigNPyab3UWXTh6N61MKDKJ0gcF1DzNtsM/PdxfTyr nxjW2VDNrZnrYkR8I7D76wA9pvV0NJvAMYxTSsfHdaLQebxk+oJKR1Mvf4zgPlGgov0+ Cty8hy6JqIr0T3NCyaMRPsekIKhOlFTbrxLyqSJlv34jBtFSAQzzmNKOrUuIGyxrReSw 6CzD/xO99KoRaaJnGP4UzPqUakwGOZp7xjdwM9Q/ZBB0tJA9L13xViCP5dDgM/Dlyqzm no9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319xEwLVMbhgL18AqD7yHeDg9ZX+8M7Gy8s2QrH2+/aZw/J+TSm w0olVlXWsYifYIRCpfkqk65tTQvzYOMwBcJUeTmT7l8Wel0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyMGnXIW0QI7k+cUCCYol5TAItJAecv/dxIj34BvonZ87qgS8xO+zxOvaTuxdjl02KeQ+QBtM2KW35ZXwNo8x8=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:4ac9:: with SMTP id t9mr5196820uae.40.1589589826575; Fri, 15 May 2020 17:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.1127.1589588288.10223.txauth@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1127.1589588288.10223.txauth@ietf.org>
From: Hankins Parichabutr <hankins.parichabutr@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 20:43:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOvbAbUQ9TegGLLWjUZKtdTYK2p_RxDNQzEJME1-Pb1HrPn1pA@mail.gmail.com>
To: txauth@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f39fb605a5b93824"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/UjHf5uBAbmuRghLwj1qp9Sn0unA>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] Txauth Digest, Vol 9, Issue 39
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: Sat, 16 May 2020 00:43:52 -0000

I'm late to the melee, but will just express that the dot-voting system was
not what I was expecting.
I thought there was going to be a forced-rank vote - and which I think
would have made more sense.

Personally, since I couldn't rank my top-5 votes, I put 4 dots on "TxAuth3:
Transmission of Authority" - since it seemed the most descriptive of what
we're trying to work on.

I put one dot on "TXAuth1: Truly eXtensible Authorization" as a pale
alternative.

Forced-rank is not immune to gaming, so to that I'll just say "poor form".

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hankins Parichabutr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:18 PM <txauth-request@ietf.org> wrote:

> Send Txauth mailing list submissions to
>         txauth@ietf.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         txauth-request@ietf.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         txauth-owner@ietf.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Txauth digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and Delegation"
>       (Justin Richer)
>    2. Re: consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and Delegation"
>       (Steinar Noem)
>    3. Re: consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and Delegation"
>       (Dick Hardt)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
> To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
> Cc: "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>rg>, "rdd@cert.org" <rdd@cert.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 23:37:09 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Txauth] consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and
> Delegation"
> My concerns with the instructions and parameters for the new voting
> process have been addressed.
>
> - Justin
> ________________________________________
> From: Dick Hardt [dick.hardt@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 7:27 PM
> To: Justin Richer
> Cc: txauth@ietf.org; rdd@cert.org
> Subject: Re: [Txauth] consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and
> Delegation"
>
> Would you clarify if your concerns have been addressed?
> [
> https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=212ca918-4889-444f-b444-e12588989e83]ᐧ
> <https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=212ca918-4889-444f-b444-e12588989e83]%E1%90%A7>
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:18 PM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu<mailtomailto:
> jricher@mit.edu>> wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification on the deadline and the voting process, as
> that was not clear in the initial thread.
>
> I appreciate and understand that we are not a voting organization, it's
> one of the core tenets of the IETF as you know. I hope that the chairs can
> continue to be transparent about all of the information that they use to
> call consensus.
>
> I'm sorry that the fact that I want a fair and clear process is confusing
> to you, though I'm not sure why. Every response and action I have taken
> here has been to that goal. I hope that you can assume good intentions.
>
> - Justin
> ________________________________________
> From: Dick Hardt [dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 7:02 PM
> To: Justin Richer
> Cc: txauth@ietf.org<mailto:txauth@ietf.org>; rdd@cert.org<mailtolto:
> rdd@cert.org>
> Subject: Re: [Txauth] consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and
> Delegation"
>
> We are not going to make the May 18 deadline. My suggestion of
> "Authorization and Delegation" was a Hail Mary attempt to get consensus
> last minute.
>
> There was not consensus to use "transactional". As Roman stated, we are
> not voting, we are looking for rough consensus.
>
> Per your concern on the process, we are looking for consensus as Roman
> stated, not a majority of votes.
>
> wrt. the votes, I was proposing that people would state their preference
> (1st, 2nd, 3rd), not equal votes (top 3 choices)
>
> Your last comment is confusing given your recent posts.
>
> Have your concerns been addressed?
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 3:50 PM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu<mailtomailto:
> jricher@mit.edu><mailto:jricher@mit.edu<mailto:jricher@mit.edu>>> wrote:
> I have a concern about the short timeframe needed here, which, as I
> understand it, would require getting everyone to participate over the
> weekend in order to get results in time - the original deadline given was
> Monday May 18. I fear that the timing will make people miss it entirely and
> we will not get a representative sample of the group.
>
> As an aside, I'm also concerned that you would discount the results below
> when the decision to not use "transactional" was a much, much smaller
> sample and margin. And yet that decision seems set and done, since it was
> excluded from the poll options entirely.
>
> I'm also concerned that the process outlined is not fully specified. If we
> are going to do this, I would like to know more about the voting process
> proposed in 3, specifically what the timing will be and how votes will be
> counted. Is this a preference system, where order matters, or is it three
> equal votes per person? I think these things need to be clear before anyone
> submits feedback.
>
> More than anyone, I want this process to be fair and representative. I am
> eager to get on to the real work because I think we have an opportunity to
> make major steps forward for application security on the internet.
>
>  - Justin
> ________________________________________
> From: Dick Hardt [dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com
> ><mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com>>]
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 6:20 PM
> To: Justin Richer
> Cc: txauth@ietf.org<mailto:txauth@ietf.org><mailto:txauth@ietf.org<mailto:
> txauth@ietf.org>>t;>; rdd@cert.org<mailto:rdd@cert.org><mailto:rdd@cert.org
> <mailto:rdd@cert.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Txauth] consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and
> Delegation"
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> [
> https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=0f26de16-5b6f-4cf4-9b00-3744a289a9a9]ᐧ
> <https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=0f26de16-5b6f-4cf4-9b00-3744a289a9a9]%E1%90%A7>
> <
> https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=0f26de16-5b6f-4cf4-9b00-3744a289a9a9]%E1%90%A7
> ><
> https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=0f26de16-5b6f-4cf4-9b00-3744a289a9a9]%E1%90%A7
> >
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 3:02 PM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu<mailtomailto:
> jricher@mit.edu><mailto:jricher@mit.edu<mailto:jricher@mit.edu>><mailto:
> jricher@mit.edu<mailto:jricher@mit.edu><mailto:jricher@mit.edu<mailto:
> 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<mailtomailto:
> rdd@cert.org><mailto:rdd@cert.org<mailto:rdd@cert.org>><mailto:
> rdd@cert.org<mailto:rdd@cert.org><mailto:rdd@cert.org<mailto: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<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com
> ><mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com>><mailto:
> dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com><mailto:
> dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com>>>>
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 5:04 PM
> To: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu<mailto:jricher@mit.edu><mailto:
> jricher@mit.edu<mailto:jricher@mit.edu>><mailto:jricher@mit.edu<mailto:
> jricher@mit.edu><mailto:jricher@mit.edu<mailto:jricher@mit.edu>>>>
> Cc: txauth@ietf.org<mailto:txauth@ietf.org><mailto:txauth@ietf.org<mailto:
> txauth@ietf.org>><mailto:txauth@ietf.org<mailto:txauth@ietf.org><mailto:
> txauth@ietf.org<mailto:txauth@ietf.org>>>; Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org
> <mailto:rdd@cert.org><mailto:rdd@cert.org<mailto:rdd@cert.org>><mailto:
> rdd@cert.org<mailto:rdd@cert.org><mailto:rdd@cert.org<mailto: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<mailtomailto:
> jricher@mit.edu><mailto:jricher@mit.edu<mailto:jricher@mit.edu>><mailto:
> jricher@mit.edu<mailto:jricher@mit.edu><mailto:jricher@mit.edu<mailto:
> 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<mailtomailto:
> dick.hardt@gmail.com><mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:
> dick.hardt@gmail.com>><mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:
> dick.hardt@gmail.com><mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:
> 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<mailto:Txauth@ietf.org><mailto:Txauth@ietf.org<mailto:
> Txauth@ietf.org>><mailto:Txauth@ietf.org<mailto:Txauth@ietf.org><mailto:
> Txauth@ietf.org<mailto:Txauth@ietf.org>>>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>
> [
> https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=987b7021-db43-4340-b683-c6fa9c372681]ᐧ
> <https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=987b7021-db43-4340-b683-c6fa9c372681]%E1%90%A7>
> <
> https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=987b7021-db43-4340-b683-c6fa9c372681]%E1%90%A7
> >
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Steinar Noem <steinar@udelt.no>
> To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
> Cc: txauth@ietf.org
> Bcc:
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 02:09:08 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Txauth] consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and
> Delegation"
> Transmission of authority is a more interesting name, no?
>
> fre. 15. mai 2020 kl. 20:22 skrev Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>om>:
>
>> 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
>>
> --
> Vennlig hilsen
>
> Steinar Noem
> Partner Udelt AS
> Systemutvikler
>
> | steinar@udelt.no | hei@udelt.no  | +47 955 21 620 | www.udelt.no |
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
> To: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
> Cc: "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>rg>, "rdd@cert.org" <rdd@cert.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 17:17:37 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Txauth] consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and
> Delegation"
>
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:18 PM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>>  I hope that you can assume good intentions.
>>
>
> This is ironic given you made the following statements:
>
>
>>
>> As an aside, I'm also concerned that you would discount the results below
>> when the decision to not use "transactional" was a much, much smaller
>> sample and margin. And yet that decision seems set and done, since it was
>> excluded from the poll options entirely.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> ᐧ
> Txauth mailing list
> Txauth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>