Subject: [ietf-dkim] Using mailing list to work through open issues

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:14:10 -0700

Folks,

Although it's great fun to schedule a time for everyone to use jabber 
together, there is nothing preventing our conducting exactly the same 
style of process over email.

I know that might sound revolutionary, but it used to work pretty well, 
before IM became popular.

This merely requires that we have a discussion 'chair' who introduces 
the next topic, provides a bit of on-going oversight, and declares a 
topic closed when it is.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:19:23 -0700

On 5 Oct 2006, at 10:14 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Although it's great fun to schedule a time for everyone to use  
> jabber together, there is nothing preventing our conducting exactly  
> the same style of process over email.
>
> I know that might sound revolutionary, but it used to work pretty  
> well, before IM became popular.
>
> This merely requires that we have a discussion 'chair' who  
> introduces the next topic, provides a bit of on-going oversight,  
> and declares a topic closed when it is.

+2^n-1

We could also set up a separate, moderated list. The moderator could  
fail to post off-topic messages. It would also permit those of us  
with daft schedules and travel plans to participate.

The only issue I can think of is whether the protocols associated  
with that have sufficient standardization. What if, for example,  
someone were to send a forged message to the moderator.

Please? Could we? It seems to me that not only is Jabber something  
that discourages participation, as it requires such a meeting to be  
scheduled along with the rest of life, but it doesn't actually work.

I think a moderated DKIM-issues list might be the best way to handle  
issues.

	Jon

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:26:52 -0700

> fail to post off-topic messages. It would also permit those of us with 
> daft schedules and travel plans to participate.

I suggest we simply try to apply the 'meeting' model to the current 
mailing list.  Yes, there will be (potentially many) postings that are 
off-topic.  But a moderated list requires direct intervention of the 
moderator, for every posting.

That strikes me as more of a burden on the moderator than simply having 
a "moderator" use the current list to declare topics and offer guidance 
about getting back on topic, if wandering postings involve more than one 
or two folks.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:36:05 +0100

> On 5 Oct 2006, at 10:14 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
>> the next topic, provides a bit of on-going oversight, and declares a 

And list participants that behave. From my p-o-v that is a real
plus for jabber - people act as if they're in a meeting, which
we don't all always do with email.

> +2^n-1
...
> It seems to me that not only is Jabber something that
> discourages participation, as it requires such a meeting to be scheduled 
> along with the rest of life, but it doesn't actually work.

That's overstated IMO. Jabber has worked pretty well, except in
a couple of cases. (But you are on record as not liking it, and
for good reasons, I acknowledge.)

> I think a moderated DKIM-issues list might be the best way to handle 

If there were support for something like that I'd be willing, but I
suspect it might also generate opposition and as Dave said it puts
a big burden on the moderator.

I'd like us to stick with the jabber sessions for the next few
weeks and we can discuss it in San Diego (and on the list) and
maybe change modus operandi when we finish the ssp-reqs.

S.

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:24:32 -0400

> with daft schedules and travel plans to participate.
Moderated IETF lists are procedurally dicey.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:50:08 -0700

> and declares a topic closed when it is.

Agreed.

Email supports this effort in a manner that Jabber does not.  Email  
offers a means to split conversations into threads, and redirect  
message sources.  Jabber topics are announced opened/closed, where  
responses are limited to short blurbs.  This is done while  
participants track conversations offering a maze of abbreviated,  
numerated, and hyphenated references from a variety of sources.  The  
number of displays available becomes a limiting factor in being able  
to participate effectively, as time is extremely limited.

This effort is made even more complex with various server related  
failures, where responses must be real-time before a topic is changed  
and further discussion is thwarted.  The half dozen jabber  
participants is a sizable reduction from the mailing-list, and should  
not be considered representative.

Jabber limits both the time and response any participant is  
permitted.  An inability to offer comprehensive responses should not  
be considered improved behavior.  The last two points brought to the  
list slammed in the jabber session were revived only after  
comprehensive responses were permitted within the larger community.

The reduced activity on this list at times seems to demonstrate these  
are conversations.  An exchange of concepts, where indeed not  
everyone has the same perspective, should not be seen as a problem,  
but rather as offering better review.

-Doug

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:57:15 -0700

> maybe change modus operandi when we finish the ssp-reqs.

A moderated list is probably not worth the howls of "censorship" that
are likely to ensue. But you don't have to have moderated lists to have
moderation. I suspect that that is what Dave was getting at.

       Mike