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

Justin Richer <> Fri, 15 May 2020 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E333A09DB for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zCyCGXU2-0od for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D9CA3A0947 for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 15:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as jricher@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 04FM2toi008409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 15 May 2020 18:02:55 -0400
From: Justin Richer <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8F471C43-A29A-4F55-9DF3-431FFCFF78D4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 18:02:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>, Dick Hardt <>
To: "" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and Delegation"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 22:03:05 -0000

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:

TxAuth3: 42
TXAuth1: 25
GNAP: 20
PAuthZ: 19
TXAuth2: 12
TIDYauth2: 8
ZAuthZ: 6
GranPro: 4
TIDYauth1: 3
ReAuthZ: 3
DIYAuthZ: 3
IDPAuthZ: 2
TIDEAuth: 2
TIEAuth: 2
RefAuthZ: 2
BeBAuthZ: 2
AAuthZ: 1
BYOAuthZ: 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 <> 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] <>
> [2] <>
> [3] <>
> From: Dick Hardt <> 
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 5:04 PM
> To: Justin Richer <>
> Cc:; Roman Danyliw <>
> 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 < <>> 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 < <>> 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
> > <>
> > <>