Subject: RE: WG Chairs' training/information/resources?

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:10:37 -0600

OK, I'm guilty (and am now subscribed to IETF-announce), but this brings up another topic - I can remember when it was possible to keep up with the general IETF discussion list (although I DID use the IETF+censored flavor), but I just can't make myself subscribe again, after looking through the last couple of days postings.

I know a number of you do keep up with [email-masked], but I bet a number of you don't, either.

I suspect that one reason for the level of interest in wgchairs mailing list is that we are having discussions we would love to have on the main discussion list (and it would be more transparent if we did), but we can't stand the signal-to-noise ratio there.

Is there a realistic way for the IETF to communicate via e-mail (as opposed to IETF wgchairs communicating via e-mail, or IETF workgroups communicating via e-mail), or have we just blown all scaling away for this possibility? Maybe the recent open-mike plenaries are the best, and most effective, way to do this anyway, but...

Obligatory sociology - I also know, by face, almost everyone who posts here. That was never the case for me on the main IETF discussion list, and I can visualize several of you thinking, "and that is a FEATURE, not a bug!"

Spencer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]

> Subject: RE: WG Chairs' training/information/resources?

[deleted down to]

>
> the IESG has tried to remember to announce policy documents on
> ietf-announce....
>
>

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:16:20 -0500

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:10:37AM -0600, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I suspect that one reason for the level of interest in wgchairs
> mailing list is that we are having discussions we would love to have
> on the main discussion list (and it would be more transparent if we
> did), but we can't stand the signal-to-noise ratio there.
> 
> Is there a realistic way for the IETF to communicate via e-mail (as
> opposed to IETF wgchairs communicating via e-mail, or IETF
> workgroups communicating via e-mail), or have we just blown all
> scaling away for this possibility? Maybe the recent open-mike
> plenaries are the best, and most effective, way to do this anyway,
> but...

I think you're so very right.  Ultimately, I suspect it's an issue of
scaling.  Just as there's been concern that the IESG can't grow beyond
a certain size without losing some of its effectiveness (this has come
up in the recent discussions about the disposition of Sub-IP area),
mailing lists beyond a certain size just don't work any more, and I
fear the IETF mailing list has met that fate.

The only real solution has been to fall back to a more restricted
list, which we seem to have done naturally, without any real explicit
decision.  That's unfortunate, but there may not be any other remedy,
although in the interests of transparency hopefully the wgchairs
mailing list is at least archived publically.

One thought might be to create a list which consists of the wgchairs
plus all authors of ID's that are associated with a working group and
which have been published in the last 9 months.  That would result in
a list that as a community which is larger than just the wgchairs, but
smaller than global IETF list.

I'm not sure I like the idea of an "elite list", but I don't know of
any other way of filtering out the Jim Flemings and Dan Bernsteins of
the world; and it's not just them, it's also their disciples, which
they invite to join the list for lobbying purposes.  The end result is
a denial of service attack on the list.

> Obligatory sociology - I also know, by face, almost everyone who
> posts here. That was never the case for me on the main IETF discussion
> list, and I can visualize several of you thinking, "and that is a
> FEATURE, not a bug!"

I definitely consider this a feature....

						- Ted

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:28:11 -0800

> a denial of service attack on the list.

Another way of restricting the list is in scope, rather than
participation.  The IETF list suffers from a scope that can be
(loosely) interpreted to mean just about anything having to do with
the Internet.  Public lists of narrower scope, e.g., the
problem-statement list, have the feature that you can sanction people
for off-topic posts.  Enthusiastic, thoughtful list management helps
although, in my experience, that takes time...

--aaron