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

Roman Danyliw <> Fri, 15 May 2020 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B8C3A0A0F for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 14:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URZF0p-H8EU1 for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 14:46:34 -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 8851D3A0A0C for <>; Fri, 15 May 2020 14:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 04FLkRXY008861; Fri, 15 May 2020 17:46:27 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 04FLkRXY008861
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1589579187; bh=hNTzK1mLThjuRymFJHy+723/RmYGfNAxlMtZhdSVc7A=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mqtVHLWYuU6FDtBPbcdMAQ/wF3F4fCyOqhyJsXsnd6NP90v6YS9NBwuUQ+6outJSe mezaUBe7QOMK9lj6uPcMDe9DEVhIDHXGrY4oY44AGIZ7mkiTEOyBznvRat6prLAvch NP0cWhLjrfzXqdW1BFQkfsSv+U6I6sGk7d1jKDhE=
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 04FLkQd8008996; Fri, 15 May 2020 17:46:26 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Fri, 15 May 2020 17:46:26 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1847.3; Fri, 15 May 2020 17:46:25 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb]) by ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb%22]) with mapi id 15.01.1847.007; Fri, 15 May 2020 17:46:25 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <>
To: Dick Hardt <>, Justin Richer <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Txauth] consensus call on WG name: "Authorization and Delegation"
Thread-Index: AQHWKuXEsKbn81LPpUuuPjDymJh/Oqip2I8AgAANdoD//8A5wA==
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 21:46:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e744a5fe268f4e2380db23a092da4fc7certorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 21:46:37 -0000


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.



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:

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