Subject: A plea for calm

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 08:40:51 +0200

Folks,

the debate that was triggered by the site-local debate has touched on a lot 
of topics that are at the very heart of the design of the Internet, and for 
which we have to make important decisions in the near future.

This is a good and proper discussion to have on this mailing list.

The debate has also touched on the site-local decision of the IPv6 working 
group, a subject to which there are strong emotions attached.
The technical debates on that specific topic belong in the IPv6 WG's 
mailing list; the larger architectural issues belong (IMHO) here.

However, I must ask participants to try to remember the guidelines for 
conduct for the IETF, RFC 3184. In particular:

   1. IETF participants extend respect and courtesy to their colleagues
      at all times.

      IETF participants come from diverse origins and backgrounds and
      are equipped with multiple capabilities and ideals.  Regardless of
      these individual differences, participants treat their colleagues
      with respect as persons--especially when it is difficult to agree
      with them.

   2. IETF participants develop and test ideas impartially, without
      finding fault with the colleague proposing the idea.

      We dispute ideas by using reasoned argument, rather than through
      intimidation or ad hominem attack.  Or, said in a somewhat more
      IETF-like way:

            "Reduce the heat and increase the light"

I'm sure we all want to. And I'm also sure we all find it hard to adhere to 
at times. But we need it in order to get work done.

One more point: An argument does not become stronger by being repeated more 
often.
Of the 175 senders to this list last month, 20 of us contributed more than 
half the list traffic. If we have made our position clear, the argument is, 
I think, stronger if it is not repeated - and silence allows other voices 
to be heard.

Yours for a thoughtful debate,

                     Harald Alvestrand

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 23:55:12 +0200

> One more point: An argument does not become stronger by being repeated 
> more often.
> Of the 175 senders to this list last month, 20 of us contributed more 
> than half the list traffic. If we have made our position clear, the 
> argument is, I think, stronger if it is not repeated - and silence 
> allows other voices to be heard.

Harald,

while I strongly agree with this entire message, there is also a danger 
of a "silent majority" in a mailing list.
I believe the approach cited works best with a moderator that 
periodically attempts summaries of the results of the discussion.
In WG mailing lists, this can be done by the working group chair.
It's not clear who is playing this role in this list.
(And I'm not trying to imply you should.)

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:22:02 +0200

Carsten,

you seem to suggest that we should get someone to act as "secretary" for 
debates on the IETF list - now that's a novel and interesting concept!

(I've seen "moderator" used in 2 ways - the "summarize and state consensus" 
role Carsten mentions below, and the "sanction inappropriate behaviour" 
role that is commonly used with "mailing list moderator" - these roles 
don't have to be done by the same person....)

Two questions for the community:

- Is this a good idea?
- Does the person exist who could do a good job and is willing to do it?

Food for thought indeed!

                  Harald

--On torsdag, april 03, 2003 23:55:12 +0200 Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> of a "silent majority" in a mailing list. I believe the approach cited
> works best with a moderator that periodically attempts summaries of the
> results of the discussion. In WG mailing lists, this can be done by the
> working group chair. It's not clear who is playing this role in this list.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:17:27 +0200

Dean,

if you really want me to pursue this topic, raise a process complaint.
Note that:

- The namedroppers issue has been dealt with extensively before.
- The DNSOPS list is not moderated.
- Since you asked, I have scanned both your comments and Rob's comments on 
DNSOP; by my count, you repeated the same argument with no additional 
information in approximately 12 out of the 35 messages you sent to the list 
over the last month.

For anyone who wants to check:

The list archive is at http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/
Rob's note to you is at 
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00002.html

               Harald

--On torsdag, april 03, 2003 19:01:26 -0500 Dean Anderson <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> Sometimes the moderator has their own axe to grind.
>
> This has happened with Dan Bernstein on namedroppers to the extent where
> his address was posted for unauthorized unsubscriptions, his messages were
> blocked, and handled in ways that were inappropriately unique. Others have
> also experienced this. Randy Bush is a frequent abuser.
>
> I have just seen this on DNSOP, where Rob Austein asked for a discussion
> topic to stop, and then asked for the polar opposite to be re-introduced
> "from oblivion". He refused to chastise several blatant ad hominems
> containing foul language, and instead publicly chastised me without cause,
> only because I was on the opposite side.  Randy Bush was an abuser in this
> case as well. In fact, Bush only contributed ad hominems to the
> discussion.
>
> See my message to DNSOP dated Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:55:49 -0500 (EST)
>
> Quoting myself:
>   "Instead of using your authority to bias discussion around proposals you
>    personally support, you should chastise those making ad hominem
> attacks,    or otherwise unprofessional posts, to keep discussion on a
> professional    level, and work to clarify arguments and objections, so
> that rational    decisions can be made."
>
> There is much discouragement when faced with such obvious bias toward
> leader's personal pet projects, and the failure to police the abuse of
> "chums" in the leadership.
>
> 		--Dean

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 04:12:08 -0800 (PST)

Dear Harald,

No, the person you're describing does not exist (for the entire
ietf general mailing list), it's a challenge for people to
summarize working group mailing list threads!

BUT ...

A more scalable request might be 

"does the person exist who would recognize a thread that is
active and repetitive, who could post a REQUEST for someone to
summarize, and 

does the person exist who is willing to summarize a specific
thread that is (1) of interest to the summarizer, and (2) in
danger of ratholing unproductively with no resolution?"

I think this is more likely to be realistic (I don't even read
the uncensored IETF list, much less have time to write the
summary for all active threads, but I bet someone would be
willing to summarize site-local to make it go away/back to the
IPV6 list!)

And, yes, making threads either resolve or go away from the IETF
list is definitely a good thing. I used to be surprised at the
number of active participants who don't subscribe to the IETF
list; honestly, I'm more surprised these days at the number of
people who DO subscribe! and anything that makes it easier for
us to have multi-WG and even multi-area discussions is A Good
Thing.

Spencer

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:52:29 +0200

> (I've seen "moderator" used in 2 ways - the "summarize and state 
> consensus" role Carsten mentions below, and the "sanction 
> inappropriate behaviour" role that is commonly used with "mailing list 
> moderator" - these roles don't have to be done by the same person....)

Ah, words.

Moderator in the sense of "control rod in a nuclear power station" 
(i.e., your second meaning) -- this is something the IETF chair has the 
authority to do, and has done in the past.  (You may of course choose 
to delegate some of this work.)

Given the prevalence of the mailing list moderator concept on the net, 
we may need a different term for "role that facilitates generating 
consensus", which is often called moderator in meeting management.  
Secretary somehow implies "administrative assistant", at least to my 
cultural background, unless it's called "secretary general" or such 
(somehow Kofi Annan comes to mind as a good example of such a 
moderator, but this example may be lost on US/UK people at the moment). 
  "Facilitator" may focus too much on making things possible, but at 
least it's not taken yet on the net.

If we want the latter role, I believe it needs to be somebody the IETF 
would be comfortable to have in the IAB (though not necessarily a 
[current] IAB member).
I also believe this role is best separated from the first role, 
although this may vary with the topic at hand.
All of this, of course assumes that we do have useful discussion on the 
IETF list, which has not happened too often in the recent past, but 
could increase with the establishment of this role.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:01:26 -0500 (EST)

Quoting myself:
  "Instead of using your authority to bias discussion around proposals you
   personally support, you should chastise those making ad hominem attacks,
   or otherwise unprofessional posts, to keep discussion on a professional
   level, and work to clarify arguments and objections, so that rational
   decisions can be made."

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:54:51 -0500 (EST)

Which 12 were repeated?

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:23:59 -0500 (EST)

> if you really want me to pursue this topic, raise a process complaint.

Where is the procedure for that?

> - The namedroppers issue has been dealt with extensively before.

Yes, there has been previous problems, and changes to the administration
of namedroppers as a result. However, the previous alterations have been
unsuccessful at stopping the abuse of Dan Bernstein by Randy Bush. The
most recent new complaints involving Dan Bernstein and Randy Bush have not
yet been dealt with.

> - The DNSOPS list is not moderated.

It is not moderated, however the chairs should not be permitting or
encouraging personal attacks, foul language, and unprofessional behavior,
while chastising professional behavior, in order to promote their pet
projects.

> http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00002.html

And one should also look at

My response to Rob, asking him to clarify his complaint:
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00003.html

Rob's response, indicating his charges of "loaded terminology":
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00004.html

My response, refuting Rob's charges, and detailing his own inappropriate
behavior: http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00012.html

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 17:56:46 +0200

> Where is the procedure for that?

RFC 2026 section 6.5

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 18:19:42 +0200

> Which 12 were repeated?
The following essentially tell me nothing more than "as I have said before, 
I think reverse mapping in the DNS is useless".

http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00027.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00000.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00001.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00147.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00144.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00142.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00140.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00129.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00128.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00122.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00113.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00098.html

This goes back to March 19.

slightly more informative messages from you in the same debate, which I did 
not count among the 12 repeats:

http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00052.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00051.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00049.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00046.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00031.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00003.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00019.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00014.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00012.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00011.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00196.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00194.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00184.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00180.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00170.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00163.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00158.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00155.html
http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-03/msg00146.html

(at this point, I did not bother copying any more URLs, so you may have 
made more arguments that I did not count as repeats before March 22)

                         Harald

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:00:08 -0800

Carsten,

CB>  there is also a danger
CB> of a "silent majority" in a mailing list.

1.  the IETF is based on active participation.  if a person does not
express their views, the views do not count.  literally does not count.

one might wish the ietf were conducted on a different basis, such as
ensuring that each participant were individually queried.  however
that is not the ietf culture and the culture has had notable success.

so the real responsibility for being heard rests with the participant.

in other words, in the ietf, "silent majority" is an oxymoron.

now, having said that...

CB> I believe the approach cited works best with a moderator that 
CB> periodically attempts summaries of the results of the discussion.

2,  you are absolutely correct.  it is key for consensus to be
assessed explicitly.  there are many ways to do it, but it relies on an
"event" taking place in which the assessment is done, or is at least
claimed.

after everyone has had there say, it is important to have the
collection of statements summarized and rough consensus evaluated.
d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:12:25 -0400 (EDT)

> I think reverse mapping in the DNS is useless".

Actually, the messages contain explanations of why various theories about
the dependability of reverse mapping can't be relied on, and other schemes
which were brought up to show its usefulness. Many such schemes were
brought up, and refuted. That doesn't make the refutations
repetitive--though one might wonder why people keep proposing schemes that
aren't really substantially different. Suppressing the refutations doesn't
make such schemes any more workable.  However, as was also shown, Rob
Austein has a history of promoting the use of reverse for authentication,
and in doing so, participated in causing the BSD r-command exploits, and
the myth of open-relay abuse, and other problems which trace themselves to
inappropriate trust placed in in-addr.  Rob doesn't seem to have learned
much from these experiences, and continues to promote the same position he
held in 1986.

I don't think you understood the messages, or the issues being complained
about: Neither Rob's complaint, nor my complaint.  Perhaps you could take
some more time to investigate and fully understand the issues.

> http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00027.html
The message above is unique. It offers a new statement for the
in-addr-required draft, after the issue was restarted inappropriately by
Rob Austein.  According to Rob, the in-addr-required draft is a "new
topic" unrelated to the previous topic of dropping support for reverse.
(This is in my complaint, which it seems you haven't read.)

> http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00000.html
The message above is a complaint that Rob re-started the debate with a new
angle--It is not a repetition.  You will note that 27 messages were made
on the list between these posts.

The remaining messages do not need to be individually addressed.

		--Dean