Subject: Clarifying IETF process [Was: A private club]

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:57:00 -0000

Hello SM,

The point you make in your second paragraph is very valid, but it is hard to
comment on your first paragraph without details.

Would you care to phrase the issue succinctly so that a (moderately) definitive
statement can be made?

Thanks,
Adrian

> Hello,
> 
> I received a private comment which contained some some advice about
> IETF process in response to the message at
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg86321.html  That
> advice contradicts the advice provided by participants who are also
> Area Directors.
> 
> In my opinion such occurrences can cause confusion for the average
> participant as it is difficult to know whom to believe.  It can be
> even more difficult for people who reside in some parts of the world
> due to cultural differences.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:55:32 -0800

Hi Adrian, John,
>Would you care to phrase the issue succinctly so that a (moderately) 

I consider the matter as closed.

At 05:59 26-02-2014, John C Klensin wrote:

Please note that I did not ignore your message.  In my opinion the 
discussion would get out of hand.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:24:04 +0100

Hi Moonesamy,

You may close at you end but your input became an IETF input so I will not
close it because it is valid at my experience knowing about other
organisations. So I will answer my view to Adrian's question.

Clubing in private (i. e. closed from access) or hiding its powers should
be not allowed in any IETF processes. If you have a club just announce it.
I remember Adrian send a message saying that two ADs had same organisation
affiliation and that one should leave the IETF position which was excellent
process and proves high performance of IESG but what about WGs.

On the other hand, IMHO, Being social in IETF and creating social clubs is
not bad, but it should not influence IETF participants decisions, because
it is better that participants follow engineering logic/practice reasons
not following private/public clubs. Increasing Diversity into IETF is the
solution to avoid wrong clubings in IESG and IETF WGs (i. e. IETF's
main decision makings).

Please comment,

AB

Please note that my experience in IETF is two years remote participation,
two years monitoring without participation, and coming to the new meeting
to break the ice. The IETF has few private clubs very easily discovered
just by watching the lists, however, some participants still follow
engineering reasoning. I have experience with another volunteering
organisation (other than this IETF) for 2 years f2f participation and was a
council member to make decisions that guide that organisation output.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:43:05 +0000

> however, some participants still follow engineering reasoning

In the Internet ENGINEERING Task Force?

Imagine that.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [[email-masked]]
Sent: 27 February 2014 08:24
To: S Moonesamy
Cc: John C Klensin; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Clarifying IETF process [Was: A private club]

Hi Moonesamy,

You may close at you end but your input became an IETF input so I will not close it because it is valid at my experience knowing about other organisations. So I will answer my view to Adrian's question.

Clubing in private (i. e. closed from access) or hiding its powers should be not allowed in any IETF processes. If you have a club just announce it. I remember Adrian send a message saying that two ADs had same organisation affiliation and that one should leave the IETF position which was excellent process and proves high performance of IESG but what about WGs.

On the other hand, IMHO, Being social in IETF and creating social clubs is not bad, but it should not influence IETF participants decisions, because it is better that participants follow engineering logic/practice reasons not following private/public clubs. Increasing Diversity into IETF is the solution to avoid wrong clubings in IESG and IETF WGs (i. e. IETF's main decision makings).

Please comment,

AB

Please note that my experience in IETF is two years remote participation, two years monitoring without participation, and coming to the new meeting to break the ice. The IETF has few private clubs very easily discovered just by watching the lists, however, some participants still follow engineering reasoning. I have experience with another volunteering organisation (other than this IETF) for 2 years f2f participation and was a council member to make decisions that guide that organisation output.

Please note that I did not ignore your message.  In my opinion the discussion would get out of hand.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:46:26 +0000

> solution to avoid wrong clubings in IESG and IETF WGs (i. e. IETF's
I think it's important to note that the IETF participants are human.

Humans work best together when there's a social, as well as professional,
element to their relationship. In fact, I'd argue that in terms of general
progress toward a sensible goal, the social element is more important - I'm
far more inclined to listen to a new idea with an open mind from someone I
like.

Forming social relationships between participants therefore does influence
participants decisions, and usually in a positive manner.

This idea that we should become emotionless robots making perfect logical
decisions seems sensible at first glance, but it's just not how groups of
people work.

As each person joins the group, the nature of the group changes in subtle
ways. The trick is to ensure those changes are both positive, and as small
as possible - then they'll be welcomed by the group as a whole.

I would, therefore, argue that the best way a new participant can gain
traction within a group is to be personable, and make a good first
impression. The best way we can be open to new participants is to welcome
them and give them the benefit of the doubt as they find their feet
socially.

The worst way a new participant can gain traction is to repeatedly appear
to claim they know what's wrong with the group, and cause friction. The
worst way to treat a newcomer is, of course, pretty obvious, but boils down
to the group avoiding even the slightest change.

As to diversity, let me really make myself unpopular.

I think that if we suddenly introduced large numbers of people from
different cultural backgrounds, the balance of the group as a whole would
shift so violently that all social cohesion would be lost, and the net
result would be a massive decrease in work output.

Instead we should tread carefully. I agree that ensuring maximal inclusion
is a good thing; lots of different cultural backgrounds will introduce new
ideas and concepts for the group to draw upon. But working slowly is going
to lead to a better result, not only for the "old guard", but for the
newcomers too.

Dave.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 04:08:55 -0500

See RFC 4144.

Donsld

On Thursday, February 27, 2014, Dave Cridland <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 27 February 2014 08:24, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>
> > wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, IMHO, Being social in IETF and creating social clubs
>> is not bad, but it should not influence IETF participants decisions,
>> because it is better that participants follow engineering logic/practice
>> reasons not following private/public clubs. Increasing Diversity into
>> IETF is the solution to avoid wrong clubings in IESG and IETF WGs (i. e.
>> IETF's main decision makings).
>>
>>

-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 02:53:55 -0800

Hi Abdussalam,
At 00:24 27-02-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>Clubing in private (i. e. closed from access) or hiding its powers 
>should be not allowed in any IETF processes. If you have a club just 
>announce it. I remember Adrian send a message saying that two ADs 
>had same organisation affiliation and that one should leave the IETF 
>position which was excellent process and proves high performance of 
>IESG but what about WGs.

I am one of the SPFBIS WG Chairs.  I don't work for the same company 
as the other WG co-Chair.  We don't have any clubs or organizations 
in common except the IETF.  I could not find anything else which 
might be a concern.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:45:58 -0000

>position which was excellent process and proves high performance of

Hi,

For the avoidance of doubt, I did not say "one [of the Routing ADs] should leave
the IETF position"
I explained how the two Routing ADs would try to operate to avoid any issues of
bias (or seeming bias) caused by our shared affiliation.

Abdussalam might like to look through the WG chairs page at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ to see how many WGs are chaired by people with
the same affiliation. I think he will find it an exceptionally low number. The
situation arises from time to time when people change jobs, but ADs usually
attempt to avoid appointing into that position. If it was ever a problem, you
can be sure the community would be shouting about it.

Adrian

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:46:57 -0600

Dave,

Just one comment below [MB].

Mary.

> result would be a massive decrease in work output.
[MB] That's a very easy statement for someone who is in the majority
culturally and gender wise to make.   I certainly hope you are in the
majority.  My perspective would be that we might actually make better
progress with this "violent shift" that disrupts the current "social
cohesion" by bringing in new ideas and different, more effective ways of
working.  [/MB]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:25:19 +0000

> I have experience with another volunteering organisation (other than this IETF) for 2 years f2f
> participation and was a council member to make decisions that guide that organisation output.

What output did the University of Glamorgan Union Cultural Societies Committee produce?

And what is its relevance to the technical decisions made in the IETF?

Lloyd Wood

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:57:55 -0500

> See RFC 4144.
] 
]...
] 3.  Eighty Percent of Success is Showing Up
] 
]  It is the simplest thing! If you are absent, how can you have much
]  prominence or influence?
] 
]  This applies to all venues, email/messaging, telephone/video
]  conference, and especially in-person or face-to-face meetings.  You
]  do not need 100% attendance, but your absences should be rare.  If
]  possible, only miss less important events.

   Generally good advice...

   But many of us cannot afford the cost of three IETF weeks before we
see some return. (Especially those who need their employer to subsidize
three weeks of their time as well as the travel costs...)

   We cannot reasonably hope to change human nature -- least of all by
writing one RFC -- but surely we can do something to ameliorate this
economic disincentive?

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:42:41 -0500

> writing one RFC -- but surely we can do something to ameliorate this

I've always thought this is a feature, but a bug.  The reality is that
there are a huge numbers of net.kooks out there.  It may be
politically incorrect to say that, but it's true.  So if you are
trying to pariticpate remotely, it's possible, but you have to be
really, really good with your technical presentations, your evidence,
with sample implementations, perhaps a huge installed base, etc.

(And funny that, if you have all of this, it's likely that some
company will be quite willing to fund you to show up to an IETF
meeting.)

Other standards committees have other ways of filtering out kooks.  In
the ISO world, your company needs to pay $$$ to become a member of
some organization like ANSI or INCITES, or you have to get the US
State Department, or the equivalent in your company, to give you
accreditation.  The fact that the IETF allows participation by
technically minded people trying to participate remotely, and
hopefully pursuade some number of people who *do* have funding to
attend in person to help champion your cause, makes it actually far
more open than many other standards organizations that I've had the
opportunity to work in.

For example, I was once involved in a ISO-related standards activity
where there was active plotting[1] to hold a series in-person meetings
in far-off countries in Asia specifically because there was a known
kook/troublemaker who was based out of Europe, and it was hoped that
by holding the meetings in various companies in Asia, it would put the
travel costs of this known trouble maker out of reach --- and it
worked; the person, who had gotten ISO accrediation for some small
country that had the same standing as all of the USA, never did end up
attending any of the in-person meetings.

[1] Not by me; I and the others who had originally done the technical
work wasn't up on the policies and procedures of ISO, so the companies
that were interested in pushing this standard forward paid $$$ to
consultants whose primary careers was to work the ISO process; I just
got to see that particular sausage making factory and was quite
astonished by how it worked in comparison to the IETF.

Is any of this perfect?  No; but it's important to keep in mind that
standards organizations are composed of humans; both those who are
highly incentivized to make progress, and those who seem to have goals
to try to stop progress.  Quite frankly, I find the IETF setup of
requiring the investment of in-person face time to be a far better way
of solving the "how do you filter out the koooks and make progress
while still being open" than what I've seen in other standards
settings processes.

       	       				- Ted

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:44:03 -0800

Hi Mary, John, Ted,
At 03:46 27-02-2014, Mary Barnes wrote:
>[MB] That's a very easy statement for someone 
>who is in the majority culturally and gender 
>wise to make.   I certainly hope you are in the 
>majority.  My perspective would be that we might 
>actually make better progress with this "violent 
>shift" that disrupts the current "social 
>cohesion" by bringing in new ideas and 
>different, more effective ways of working.  [/MB]

As background information, I was the first WG 
Chair from the African and Latin American 
regions.  There is now a WG Chair from the Latin 
American region.  Adrian Farrel deserves credit 
for that.  There was the following comment in the 
Latin American region [1] about that:

   "Es la única Working Group Chair que vive en Latam, no?"

I agree with the "bringing in new ideas and 
different, more effective ways of working".  I am 
not inclined to follow the "IETF way"; I like to 
see results while keeping the people I work with happy.

>writing one RFC -- but surely we can do something to ameliorate this

The issue is not about changing human 
nature.  There was a perfectly valid reason (in 
my opinion) for why there were three meetings (I 
did not preface the last word with "IETF" as I 
would then have to explain the history).  I would 
be curious to read what others people think about the economic disincentive.

>company will be quite willing to fund you to show up to an IETF

That's why there are a lot of Powerpoint 
presentations.  Making fancy speeches at the 
microphone may capture the attention of some company. :-)

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/ietf-lac/2013-November/000418.html

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:30:23 -0000

Hi SM,

> There is now a WG Chair from the Latin
> for that. 

Thanks, but no I don't.
I always appoint the best person for the job.
Ines owes her position as WG co-chair in the ROLL WG to her capabilities not to
her town of residence.

Adrian

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 19:53:59 -0500

Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I've always thought this is a feature, but a bug.

   (Quoted without comment...)

> The reality is that there are a huge numbers of net.kooks out there.

   Oh my! :^( :^(

> It may be politically incorrect to say that, but it's true.

   Absolutely! Just count those Linux kooks!

   ;^)

> So if you are trying to pariticpate remotely, it's possible, but you
> have to be really, really good with your technical presentations,
> your evidence, with sample implementations, perhaps a huge installed
> base, etc.

   Umm...

   You're welcome to think that, if it makes you feel better...

> company will be quite willing to fund you to show up to an IETF

   You're welcome to think that, too...

> Other standards committees have other ways of filtering out kooks.

   "Born: 1968"... You must have been around in the 1990's...
Anyone who lived through Usenet should have learned _many_ ways to
filter out "kooks"...

> ...  Quite frankly, I find the IETF setup of requiring the investment
> of in-person face time to be a far better way of solving the "how do
> you filter out the koooks and make progress while still being open"
> than what I've seen in other standards settings processes.

   But _my_ question is, why does the "IETF" need to filter out the
"kooks?"

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:07:03 -0500

>   But _my_ question is, why does the "IETF" need to filter out the

Because they burn our most precious resource: the time of active contributors.

Of course, there is no way to filter out kooks, so the point is moot, but you asked, and that's why.

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:36:46 -0500

> Because they burn our most precious resource: the time of active

   Hi, Ted!

> Of course, there is no way to filter out kooks, so the point is moot,

   I couldn't have said it better!

> but you asked, and that's why.

   Apparently, there's a logical step in there which I missed... :^(

   Somebody help me, please: If the time of active contributors is a
precious resource, isn't the obvious solution to encourage more folks
to _become_ active contributors?

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 02:43:10 +0100

>to _become_ active contributors?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month is probably related.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:51:15 -0800

Hi Ted,
>Because they burn our most precious resource: the time of active contributors.

I do not filter out anyone.

John Leslie is an IESG scribe.  Is he considered as an active contributor?

Quoting some text from the Tao:

   "The IETF is really about its participants.  Because the IETF welcomes all
    interested individuals, IETF participants come from all over the world
    and from many different parts of the Internet industry."

If where a person resides is not important then the "come from all 
over the world" is incorrect.

The recent discussions have clarified that regular IETF participants 
are aware that some IETF participants do not adhere to BCP 
54.  Quoting the IETF Chair out of context:

   'This seems inline with RFC 2026 notion that BCPs can be "community's best
    current thinking on a statement of principle".'

It is difficult to believe that the IESG is unaware of that.  It 
seems that people are turning a blind eye [1].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. To knowingly refuse to acknowledge something which you know to be real.

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 23:06:57 -0500

> to _become_ active contributors?

Only the competent ones.  There's a reason why all of the successful
companies in Silicon Valley spend a huge amount of effort making sure
that you don't hire people who will drag down the rest of the team.

So if there is a way of encouraging the compentent to be active
contributors, and discourage the incompetent, the open source project
and standards body is more likely to thrive.  The fact that someone
has the funding to attend a face to face meeting, whether it be to an
open source conference, or a standards meeting, certainly does not
correlate perfectly with competence, granted.

But my personal experience is that it works surprisingly well, so the
fact that face to face meetings might make it harder for those who
can't find someone who thinks it worthwhile to fund their work and/or
travel, is not something that I personally have a problem with.  Of
course, I'm not on the IETF leadership, so fortunately, it's not up to
me.  :-)

Cheers,

						- Ted

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:08:27 +0000

> Of course, there is no way to filter out kooks

man procmail

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:36:44 +0000

> to _become_ active contributors?

In principle yes, and in practice probably, but I think being an effective contributor is the only thing that's valuable.   Being active isn't if you aren't effective.   And being an effective contributor is non-trivial.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:45:26 +0000

> I do not filter out anyone.

If you mean an email filter robot, I don't either.   And I'm generally really happy to see new names go by, and see what the new people with whom they are associated have to say.   I think that that's the obligation we have.

But I've learned the hard way since joining the IESG that I absolutely do not have enough time to do the things I'm supposed to be doing _and_ read and respond to every email message everyone sends.   And indeed, as in this case, by responding I wind up increasing my workload, because interesting people reply.   :)

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:49:27 +0000

> man procmail

Can't.   :(

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:02:29 +0000

> Can't.   :(

my deep sympathies

---

From: Chaitanya Dhareshwar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:51:05 +0530

Try http://www.gsp.com/cgi-bin/man.cgi?topic=procmailrc or
http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?procmail

*Chaitanya Dhareshwar*

Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/chaitanyabd> | Blog <http://cbd.vcio.in> |
Skype: chaitanyabd
Mobile: +91.9820760253

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:28:38 +0000

For an Area Director and IESG member, reading IETF mail, not discarding it unread, is one of the responsibilities of the role.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Chaitanya Dhareshwar [[email-masked]]
Sent: 28 February 2014 12:21
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: IETF Disgust
Subject: Re: Clarifying IETF process [Was: A private club]

Try http://www.gsp.com/cgi-bin/man.cgi?topic=procmailrc or http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?procmail

Chaitanya Dhareshwar

Linkedin<http://in.linkedin.com/in/chaitanyabd> | Blog<http://cbd.vcio.in> | Skype: chaitanyabd
Mobile: +91.9820760253

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Can't.   :(

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:54:39 -0500

> For an Area Director and IESG member, reading IETF mail, not
> discarding it unread, is one of the responsibilities of the role.

This is a blanket statement that I cannot support.

IESG members (as well as IETFers in general) need to be smart about
using their limited cycles. They do not have cycles to read every
piece of email and read every document that they are "responsible"
for. 

Reading every piece of IETF email definitely is not prioritizing
resources properly. Indeed, it is not uncommon to see threads that
exhibit properties often associated with DOS attacks.

Thomas

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:19:43 +0000

I didn't say reading _all_ IETF mail.

But 'don't miss stuff' is a maxim. And filters can be blinders.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: Thomas Narten [[email-masked]]
Sent: 28 February 2014 12:54
To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Clarifying IETF process [Was: A private club]

Thomas

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:17:03 +0000

> exhibit properties often associated with DOS attacks.

+1

Nevertheless, procmail doesn't seem like the right answer.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:17:57 +0000

On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:19 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> But 'don't miss stuff' is a maxim.

I've never heard it before.   It's unattainable.   We all miss stuff.   If you think we've missed something important, please say so.

---

From: Juliao Braga <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:22:30 -0300

I think one of the fundamental ability to an Area Director and IESG
member is read diagonally. Exactly how we do as responsible members of
the IETF.

So is possible to capture the relevant information.

[]s, Julião

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:29:52 +0000

> Nevertheless, procmail doesn't seem like the right answer.

for some of us it is the best answer we have.  there is way too much
real work to do, and the denial of clue attacks are sufficiently
depressing to impinge on one's ability work.

jck once suggested a 2x2 matrix, with clue on one axis and energy on the
other.  the real threat is the clueless and energetic.  thomas seems to
have a primitive and very rough cut at a metric.

randy

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:56:54 -0500

> Nevertheless, procmail doesn't seem like the right answer.

Perhaps not for all.

But the other extreme (which some here regularly advocate) is complete
openness to all - just in case they might potentially have something
useful to contribute - even if the overwhelming past history strongly
suggests that will never happen.

We have people that post that are effectively DOS generators.  Their
postings are largely not taken seriously (or even read most likely) by
anyone who has been an IETF contributer for any length of time. Yet
they do get responded to (even the strong sometimes have moments of
weakness and take the bait) and it sucks away cycles from the
community that should really be directed towards more important
things.

Yet, by not kicking them off of lists and otherwise making it clear
that they have worn out their welcome, the community sends an implicit
signal to the lurkers/newcomers that even such voices are welcome and
that their disruptive tactics are perfectly acceptable behavior. Even
worse, it probably encourages some do to do the same.

Of course, everyone should get a grace period when they start, but it
should not be open ended. IMO, we are sometimes too tolerant of what
should be unnacceptable behavior -- behavior that is a drain on IETF
resources and produces little of use in return.  IMO, it does not help
the organization and it even drives away participation from those we
really want to keep. 

Case in point: there are many long-time IETFers who do not subscribe
to this list. Signal-to-noise is just too low. That should tell us
something.

Thomas

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:35:54 -0800

Hi Chaitanya,
At 04:21 28-02-2014, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote:
>Try http://www.gsp.com/cgi-

There was a problem with the afnog server around Christmas in 
2011.  This is one of the situations where it would be a problem if I 
was not reachable by email.  Using the phone was not an 
option.  There is the timezone difference and trying to find a person 
who can actually help.

In the email world there is something called the "first contact" 
problem.  Filtering email is not about judgement.  It is about being 
able to draw up a list of considerations and evaluating the 
consequences of what has not happened yet.

If I suggest to a person to try procmail I would discuss about the 
considerations with him/her.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Chaitanya Dhareshwar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:37:46 +0530

I'm not taking sides there. The links were to help Ted get an equivalent of
"man procmail".

Personally I find both sides of the argument interesting, so I'll continue
to sit on the fence until I have a compelling reason to jump in...

Thanks,

*Chaitanya Dhareshwar*

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:05 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> There was a problem with the afnog server around Christmas in 2011.  This
> is one of the situations where it would be a problem if I was not reachable
> by email.  Using the phone was not an option.  There is the timezone
> difference and trying to find a person who can actually help.
>
> In the email world there is something called the "first contact" problem.
>  Filtering email is not about judgement.  It is about being able to draw up
> a list of considerations and evaluating the consequences of what has not
> happened yet.
>

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:44:24 -0500

Personal filtering is one thing, advocating it to others as a general 
practice is another.  That is where the IETF or the WG process tends 
to go sour -- when it does appear to be a "private club," and 
"ignorance" and "Follow the Chieftain" syndrome is high. While it is 
obviously used to move an agenda forward, its not always pretty, nor 
fair when it happens and it hasn't been convincing of late the end 
results are often better.  You may get your  "RFC" but at what cost?

Thanks

Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.

-- 
HLS

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Feb 2014 21:44:40 -0000

>Nevertheless, procmail doesn't seem like the right answer.

Generally I agree, although I've found a very small number of people
whose content/traffic ratio is so poor that procmail just does what
I'd do anyway, only faster.

R's,
John

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:10:44 -0500

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:44:24PM -0500, Hector Santos wrote:
> Personal filtering is one thing, advocating it to others as a
> general practice is another.  That is where the IETF or the WG
> process tends to go sour -- when it does appear to be a "private
> club," and "ignorance" and "Follow the Chieftain" syndrome is high.
> While it is obviously used to move an agenda forward, its not always
> pretty, nor fair when it happens and it hasn't been convincing of
> late the end results are often better.  You may get your  "RFC" but
> at what cost?

If someone is carrying out a denial of service attack against an
someone on the IESG, recommending that they filter someone who has
proven that they are lacking in clue doesn't seem to me to be the same
thing as a "private club".

					- Ted

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:43:46 -0800

+1, especially if you insert "or a working group" after "IESG".

I feel it's unfair to claim there's a private club if your only evidence is
that an idea of yours didn't get support when you shared it.  It's also not
correct that this is something to take personally.  A better use of one's
energy would be to get a deeper understanding of the "why", which only
enables a more productive outcome the next time.

-MSK