Subject: Re: how to contact the IETF

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:07:06 -0500 (EST)

> From: Alex Loret de Mola <[email-masked]>

    > However, these are people who are upset, and want to make thier
    > opinions known... it is good to know (and see) that so many people are
    > interested and have a strong opinion about this subject.

Give me an effing break. These people have simply been programmed by the FSF
to show up and complain. This is not individuals who have something of
substance to contribute, it's just a chorus of sheep.

	Noel

---

From: Alex Loret de Mola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:28:08 -0500

Dear Noel:

Noel, there's no need to be cross.  The mail is filling up my inbox
the same as yours, there's no need to get upset with me about my
opinion on the matter.

I don't think we should assume that the people messaging here have
nothing of substance to contribute.  While it is likely true that some
don't have anything meaningful to add to the conversation, I doubt
that the entirety of the people who found out about the issue through
that channel are ignorant on the issues being discussed.

Are some uninformed?  Certainly.  Will those who stick around be
uninformed for long?  I would hope not.  Will they be able to
contribute meaningfully?  It depends on the individual.

But the big question... is it worthwhile for this mailing to take
place?  I feel that it has the potential to be, depending on how many
people stick around to contribute meaningfully on this and future
discussions.  While I hear your proposition that this isn't going to
happen, Noel, I don't think that should just be immediately assumed
merely based on the origins of where those coming in here first heard
about the issue.  That seems like a large net to cast.

Sincerely,

Alex Loret de Mola
Lead Software Engineer, iScan Services

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:30:04 -0800

> substance to contribute, it's just a chorus of sheep.

Speaking only for myself, Noel, I find your comment extremely offensive.
 The vast majority of these FSF-solicited comments have been respectful and
polite in tone.  The FSF claims that there is a significant probability that
progressing the current draft could lead to a tollbooth on TLS, which
everyone agrees would be a bad thing.  It seems to me a useful point of
information that there is intense and apparently fairly widely-held concern
on this point.  If the concern (as I certainly hope) is unfounded, the
concern will have been unnecessary.

I also would have preferred if they'd organized a wiki page somewhere and
had a thousand people sign it and send one pointer to [email-masked].  But
really, they are keeping it polite.

  -Tim

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:35:30 -0500

Excerpts from Tim Bray on Mon, Feb 09, 2009 04:30:04PM -0800:
> polite in tone.  

Someone who comes by, drops an opinion and then leaves, is not giving
any of us respect.  I am always pleased to have a constructive
discussion with anyone.  I don't support drive-by opinionating.

---

From: Clint Chaplin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:40:40 -0800

Alex,

This is not the first time the FSF has mailbombed [email-masked], in
fact this is the second time they have done so on this issue alone.

IIRC, from the previous time, not one person stuck around afterwards
to actually initiate a dialog.  It was all a one-way blast of
"communication", a monologue if you will.  And a not very useful one;
it was either ignored or caused a reaction in the direction opposite
to the lobbied one.

On 2/9/09, Alex Loret de Mola <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ietf mailing list
>  [email-masked]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

-- 
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Engineer
Corporate Standardization (US)
SISA

---

From: Alex Loret de Mola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:46:18 -0500

Dear Clint:

Ah, I see.  It seems that my optimism is misguided, if there is a
precedent of such situations not having any long or short term
benefits.  That is unfortunate.

However, it did have one minor benefit, which may be of questionable
merit.  The sheer volume of E-Mails did force me to pay attention to
the mailing list once more, which due to time constraints I had been
mostly ignoring for several months now.  It's probably not a
measurable amount of benefit, but now that I'm paying attention again
I'll strive to be a bit more useful and less of a silent observer.

Sincerely,

Alex Loret de Mola

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:54:51 -0500

> discussion with anyone.  I don't support drive-by opinionating.

Considering the IETF encourages people to communicate with it via  
mailing lists and there really has been no other ways offered to the  
FSF, I can't really blame them.

Perhaps we ought to look forward and see how the IETF can better  
communicate with the FSF.  Perhaps maybe thinking about a more formal  
relationship.

-andy

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:55:30 -0500

Alex,

The conclusion I draw from this experience differs from yours. If the 
individuals who sent the messages in question choose to become 
involved constructively, then there can be some benefit. But, the act 
of sending the messages in question has generated ill will, so it was 
a bad way to begin a constructive, contributory process.

Steve

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Feb 2009 01:09:06 -0000

>to actually initiate a dialog.

That is my recollection as well.  Given the cut and paste errors in
many of the messages, I don't get the impression that our new friends,
polite though they may be, are particularly well informed about or
engaged with this topic.

Any chance we could require that one subscribes to the list before
posting to it?  I realize that sufficiently motivated drive-bys could
subscribe, send, and leave, but it might reinforce the idea that IETF
lists are for debate, not for screeds.

R's,
John

---

From: Alex Loret de Mola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 20:23:55 -0500

Dear Steve:

Indeed, I can see your perspective on this now, with the aid of
information that I was unaware of previously.  I did not recall this
situation happening before (either I wasn't paying attention at that
time, or I was not yet a member of the list at that time, I joined -
if I recall correctly - sometime in 2007 or 2006, but I cannot recall
exactly), but from what it sounds like that last instance of such an
event was meritless enough to justify the suspicion and pessimism seen
here.  I hereby withdraw my appeal to optimism unless suitable
situations arise to prove otherwise.

However, I volunteer to attempt to make contact with the FSF and see
if they know about the potentially more constructive avenues available
to them.  (so far, I've been suggested that they join the IUCG,
subscribe and discuss in a two-way manner on the list, and contact the
working group directly... are there any further suggestions that can
be made?)  I can attempt to establish contact tomorrow, after I return
from my other job, unless someone wants to establish contact more
quickly.  As it stands I'm already late.

On that subject, I need to draft a proposal for an extension of hours
in the day from 24 to 36 or more. ;)  I'll be back later to resume
discussion and contact the FSF if someone else hasn't already.

Sincerely,

Alex Loret de Mola

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Stephen Kent <[email-masked]> wrote:
> individuals who sent the messages in question choose to become involved
> constructively, then there can be some benefit. But, the act of sending the
> messages in question has generated ill will, so it was a bad way to begin a
> constructive, contributory process.
>
> Steve
>

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:12:41 -0800 (PST)

> lists are for debate, not for screeds.

Subscribe, or perhaps have to go through a challenge response like one 
does with craigslist if not a registered user. Send your email ... it 
goes in a pending queue ... you get a response back that requires some
action on your part like going to a web page and completing a captcha ....

But frankly, I think subscribe is best ... then they too receive some 
portion of the email campaign. Perhaps there is a minimum subscription
interval of 24 hours?

Dave Morris

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:25:10 +1300

> action on your part like going to a web page and completing a captcha ....

The IETF list already has that; if you read the FSF's instructions to
its disciples, you will note that they even documented this fact.

Subscribing is easy (and rightly so), so I'm not sure it would
help with the problem of drive-bys. People who actually want to
join the debate are presumably here already. People who
don't want to listen will use the delete key if they have to join.

My real beef in this case is not the fact of having to delete a lot
of one-bit messages. It's that the FSF's incitation is based on
factual errors as well as emotional language. I've posted my
complaint to them at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/FSFmail.txt
It may be considered as a contribution under RFC5378.

    Brian

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:00:45 -0500

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Newton <[email-masked]> writes:
    Andrew> Considering the IETF encourages people to communicate with
    Andrew> it via mailing lists and there really has been no other ways
    Andrew> offered to the FSF, I can't really blame them.

    Andrew> Perhaps we ought to look forward and see how the IETF can
    Andrew> better communicate with the FSF.  Perhaps maybe thinking
    Andrew> about a more formal relationship.

  uhm, the FSF is an organization, but it's not the collective of all
people writing GPL or other-open-source-licensed software.  

  Mostly the people writing open source software that implement IETF
protocols are already among us ALREADY... often they don't have budgets
to attend meetings, and sometimes, their time budget limits how much
attention they can pay to the mailing lists, or to writing drafts.

  (Let along contribute to our management process and structure.
  The nomcom attendance requirements just to remain qualified for
instance are a barrier.  Lisa Dussault is the only IESG person I know of
who lives and breaths open source while fulfilling two other fulltime jobs)

  Given that almost every successful IETF protocol has had at least one
open source implementation (often two or three), the IETF really has to
do a better job of including more open source implementers.

  TLS is a REALLY good example here. It took off for everything because
managers perceive that it has an API. (What you say?) Yes. 
  OpenSSL is the API they say is it. 
  I suspect that FSF cares because it has another implementation which
is pretty popular, GnuTLS.  
  Apparently they have ALREADY implemented this draft, PRIOR to the IPR
claim.  The code is out there, and therefore the *technique* is out
there.

  SURELY the IETF doesn't want to DISCOURAGE early implementation?

- -- 
]     Y'avait une poule de jammé dans l'muffler!!!!!!!!!        |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [