Subject: Re: Messages from the ietf list for the week ending Sun Sep 6 06:00:00 2020

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 13:51:54 -0400

John Levine <[email-masked]> Sun, 06 September 2020 10:00 UTC
wrote:

> Messages from the ietf list for the week ending Sun Sep 6
> 06:00:00 2020
> 
>   3 |  31875 | Khaled Omar <[email-masked]>
>   2 |   6730 | Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
>   1 |   7065 | JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>                      <[email-masked]>
>   1 |   6770 | Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
>   1 |   6184 | John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
>   1 |   5797 | Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
>   1 |   5460 | Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
>...

John,

Given a series of recent changes, I question the utility of this
measurement in the form you are making and presenting it and
wonder what others think.   What question are we trying to
answer?   Remember that, when Thomas Narten started his list, it
was rare to have a discussion list in what we now know as the
General Area other that this list, his original measurements
would be best approximated by combining the IETF list, the Last
Call list, Manycouches,  Gendispatch, Mtgvenue, and perhaps some
others.  So, to the extent that we want to provide the same
information now that the original Narten reports provided,
probably all of those lists should be aggregated or reported in
other ways.

A second issue is what we are really trying to find out.  If it
to help people notice and remember when they are going on a bit
too much or two often, then either a week where the maximum
number of posting by one person is three is abnormal or the
action is simply elsewhere than on the IETF list.  

Unless even more people have dropped off in the last few months
than I assume, the number of people on the IETF list reaches
into four digits.  When only 13 people (or roles) have posted,
only two people have posted more than one message, and two of
the single-message postings are from role accounts and
duplicates of postings to IETF-announce, if that were a regular
pattern, it would be reasonable to infer either that there is
nothing of interest going on in the IETF, that no one cares any
more, or that there is no discussion going on, just statements.

Finally, we've known this all along but need to remember it:
when many messages are in response to others, raw counts of
message sizes mix actual comments from the person who posted
with greater or lesser quantities of quotation from earlier
messages.   Different of us do that differently; sometimes even
one of us does it differently for different messages or threads.
However, someone who wants of minimize their counts can easily
do so by not quoting from prior messages at all, even to
establish minimal contact.  Not clear we would want to encourage
that.

So:  What question are we trying to answer?  Given the tendency
toward pushing traffic onto specialized lists, what do we need
to measure to get that answer?  And, given those things, is
doing this well worth the effort and, if not, is doing it in a
way that might not be meaningful helpful or just a source of
more traffic on  the list?

thanks,
   john

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 11:49:39 -0700

Hello,
>probably all of those lists should be aggregated or reported in

It was not Mr Narten who started the list.  Over the years, the 
general view was that it was a form of censorship.  There 
measurements are not of much use except if one wants to reprimand a 
person off-list for sending too many messages.  The easiest 
alternative is not to send any message to the mailing list.  What if 
I notice a potential issue or wish to make a suggestion?  The better 
course of action is not to say anything about it.

>more, or that there is no discussion going on, just statements.

That is where the IETF is heading.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy