Re: Proposal for keeping free speech but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)
Jeroen, A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest (which still exists BTW). The rule for [EMAIL PROTECTED] was must be relevant to a chartered work item and the rule for diffserv-interest was must be relevant to diffserv technology. This worked well, with active intervention by the chair to divert off-topic threads to the -interest list. It doesn't raise any issues for the standards process, which states that all consensus points are settled on the WG mailing list. People only interested in the standards work simply ignored the -interest list. This is easy; any WG chair can do it today. Brian Jeroen Massar wrote: Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Pekka Savola writes: Why must each and every WG member be required to filter a person's postings? Much more convenient to do so in one place. Because each and every WG member is an individual, with his own ideas of what he does or doesn't want to read, and imposing the same rules upon everyone prevents members from making their own decisions. It also imposes the decisions of a small minority upon the majority. Here goes for a try... flame me off list if required. As it is indeed quite controversial to 'block' people, maybe there can be a solution that, though it will have overhead for listadmins, it will help the process that the workinggroup is actually for in the first place. In the several messages there have been brought up a number of solutions to the problem where one or multiple entities are (deliberately) flooding/overloading the mailinglists of workinggroups and other places with off-topic messages. There seem to be a couple of solutions, amongst which: - Filtering based on source address at the receiver - Filtering based on keywords, which has really bad side-effects. - Blocking the sender at the mailinglist level. - 3683 PR for complete full blockage of posting rights. The first is reasonably fine, as you don't see the message of the entity that one finds not useful, but you might see responses of others thus this is still intrusive and you still get those messages which you wanted to filter out. The second option might filter out messages which you did want to read. Both still will get these messages in the mailinglist archive, even though there was a consensus that those messages are unwanted. The third and fourth option are pretty definitive, no more messages from that entity, but this might be seen as silencing this persons freedom of speech. My proposal to solve this issue but keeping everybody happy: Two mailinglists: wg@ietf.org + full.wg@ietf.org full.wg@ is completely open, anybody can post anything they want though hopefully on topic on the subject of the workinggroup and of course based on the source address having a subscription *1 full.wg@ is subscribed to wg@ thus full.wg gets everything preserving, at least parts, of the freedom of speech that is wanted and for the people who want to read a lot of mail everyday. Initially everybody who signs up to the wg@ list can post to it. When the consensus on the list is that a member is not participating correctly, ignoring warnings etc, like currently this member can be banned from the list for a temporary amount of time. The member can still voice his opinions on the wg@ list. This thus allows him to voice his concerns to the members that do want to read them. Like the current 3683 PR the ban can become effectively indefinitely for the main list, while the poster is still and always allowed on full.wg@. The big concern here is of course that one could say that if you get booted out of the group that your voice won't be heard as they are not reading the other list. This is of course true, but one can raise their concerns on the full list, for instance Google won't differentiate between them and there will always be folks who will listen to it and forward these concerns when they have valid argumentation. By posting 'good' messages to the full.wg@ list a member can also demonstrate that he is really willing to contribute instead of disrupt. One of the nicest controversies is of course what to determine good and bad, starwars as an example, how bad are the jedi and how good are the sith, it completely depends on the side you are on, nothing else. That all boils down to trust and other factors, any mailinglist admin could abuse his position to set the sender of an address to silently discard, SMTP can have a CC: in the header and mailman will not forward the message to that person and various other nice tricks. I hope the above might give a better point to discuss all this over instead of seeing replies like that is not good see above and other comments without effective constructive arguments. Greets, Jeroen *1 = to avoid the large amount of spam flowing to the various lists which nicely get blocked because of subscription regulation.
Re: Proposal for keeping free speech but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)
Brian E Carpenter wrote: A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest (which still exists BTW). The rule for [EMAIL PROTECTED] was must be relevant to a chartered work item and the rule for diffserv-interest was must be relevant to diffserv technology. Though I never participated in diffserv WG activities, which was chartered wrongly from the beginning, your chairing strategy explains why the result of the WG is technically meaningless. People only interested in the standards work simply ignored the -interest list. They ignored the -interest list and the technology. Masataka Ohta ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal for keeping free speech but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)
Masataka Ohta wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest (which still exists BTW). The rule for [EMAIL PROTECTED] was must be relevant to a chartered work item and the rule for diffserv-interest was must be relevant to diffserv technology. Though I never participated in diffserv WG activities, which was chartered wrongly from the beginning, As a matter of fact, I believe that the insistence of the ADs involved on a very tightly drawn charter was the main reason that the WG succeeded. your chairing strategy You mean the care we took to consider dissenting opinions before reaching rough consensus? Or something else? explains why the result of the WG is technically meaningless. That is a strange statement given the actual facts of implementation and deployment. People only interested in the standards work simply ignored the -interest list. They ignored the -interest list and the technology. Are you referring to the many vendors that implemented it, or the many enterprises that have deployed it? Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal for keeping free speech but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)
Brian E Carpenter wrote: A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest (which still exists BTW). The rule for [EMAIL PROTECTED] was must be relevant to a chartered work item and the rule for diffserv-interest was must be relevant to diffserv technology. Though I never participated in diffserv WG activities, which was chartered wrongly from the beginning, As a matter of fact, I believe that the insistence of the ADs involved on a very tightly drawn charter was the main reason that the WG succeeded. As your measure of success is not in technology but in progressing standardization process, you say the WG succeeded. People only interested in the standards work simply ignored the -interest list. They ignored the -interest list and the technology. Are you referring to the many vendors that implemented it, or the many enterprises that have deployed it? I'm referring to relatively small number of enterprises that have depoyed it. Masataka Ohta ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal for keeping free speech but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)
Are you going to write mailing list software an provide it free of charge to implement all of this? Jeroen Massar wrote: Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Pekka Savola writes: Why must each and every WG member be required to filter a person's postings? Much more convenient to do so in one place. Because each and every WG member is an individual, with his own ideas of what he does or doesn't want to read, and imposing the same rules upon everyone prevents members from making their own decisions. It also imposes the decisions of a small minority upon the majority. Here goes for a try... flame me off list if required. As it is indeed quite controversial to 'block' people, maybe there can be a solution that, though it will have overhead for listadmins, it will help the process that the workinggroup is actually for in the first place. In the several messages there have been brought up a number of solutions to the problem where one or multiple entities are (deliberately) flooding/overloading the mailinglists of workinggroups and other places with off-topic messages. There seem to be a couple of solutions, amongst which: - Filtering based on source address at the receiver - Filtering based on keywords, which has really bad side-effects. - Blocking the sender at the mailinglist level. - 3683 PR for complete full blockage of posting rights. The first is reasonably fine, as you don't see the message of the entity that one finds not useful, but you might see responses of others thus this is still intrusive and you still get those messages which you wanted to filter out. The second option might filter out messages which you did want to read. Both still will get these messages in the mailinglist archive, even though there was a consensus that those messages are unwanted. The third and fourth option are pretty definitive, no more messages from that entity, but this might be seen as silencing this persons freedom of speech. My proposal to solve this issue but keeping everybody happy: Two mailinglists: wg@ietf.org + full.wg@ietf.org full.wg@ is completely open, anybody can post anything they want though hopefully on topic on the subject of the workinggroup and of course based on the source address having a subscription *1 full.wg@ is subscribed to wg@ thus full.wg gets everything preserving, at least parts, of the freedom of speech that is wanted and for the people who want to read a lot of mail everyday. Initially everybody who signs up to the wg@ list can post to it. When the consensus on the list is that a member is not participating correctly, ignoring warnings etc, like currently this member can be banned from the list for a temporary amount of time. The member can still voice his opinions on the wg@ list. This thus allows him to voice his concerns to the members that do want to read them. Like the current 3683 PR the ban can become effectively indefinitely for the main list, while the poster is still and always allowed on full.wg@. The big concern here is of course that one could say that if you get booted out of the group that your voice won't be heard as they are not reading the other list. This is of course true, but one can raise their concerns on the full list, for instance Google won't differentiate between them and there will always be folks who will listen to it and forward these concerns when they have valid argumentation. By posting 'good' messages to the full.wg@ list a member can also demonstrate that he is really willing to contribute instead of disrupt. One of the nicest controversies is of course what to determine good and bad, starwars as an example, how bad are the jedi and how good are the sith, it completely depends on the side you are on, nothing else. That all boils down to trust and other factors, any mailinglist admin could abuse his position to set the sender of an address to silently discard, SMTP can have a CC: in the header and mailman will not forward the message to that person and various other nice tricks. I hope the above might give a better point to discuss all this over instead of seeing replies like that is not good see above and other comments without effective constructive arguments. Greets, Jeroen *1 = to avoid the large amount of spam flowing to the various lists which nicely get blocked because of subscription regulation. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Doug Royer | http://IntelliCal.com ---|- Intelligent Calendars begin:vcard fn:Doug Royer n:Royer;Doug org:IntelliCal LLC adr:;;267 Kentlands Blvd, #3041;Gaithersburg;MD;20878;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:CTO x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://IntelliCal.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal Re: Proposal for keeping free speech but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)
[aggregated message, the from's are in the cc, Rob see first reply] Top-PS: Did folks see and read the following: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-00.txt Michael Thomas wrote: [..] Perhaps we should take a lesson from TCP and set a receive window on IETF mailing lists in the face of conjestion. The sender is thus obligated to keep the transmission within the window, and as a side effect to consider the quality of the, um, quantity. Just this simple step would greatly limit (purposeful) DOS attacks and other death spirals. It also mitigates the free speech attacks by not throttling based on content (which is inherently contentious), but based on wg mailing list bandwidth. A couple of mailinglists already have a form of this, eg for the ipv6 working group mailinglist, see: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg06123.html This started somewhere around 18 Aug 2003 on request of the chairs. ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/ipng-mail-archive/ipng.200308 Note that the list was then still hosted at SUN. Afaik, since this was introduced, people did start posting with higher content quality and lower quantity. Maybe Rob Austein can provide the numbers in a nice graph or some other details? Steve Silverman wrote: It seems to me that limiting users to 3 messages / day (perhaps with a maximum number of bytes) would be a minimal impact on free speech but would limit the damage done by overly productive transmitters. This could be limited to users who are nominated to a limit list by many users. Limiting to less than 3 per day would be the same as suspending for X hours. Next to that it might also inhibit one from fixing a statement, though of course one should re-read their post before posting. How difficult this would be to implement on the message exploders is another question. Mailman is python and it should not be to difficult to add per-poster counters, but this would also require that the secretariat applies those patches and then hope that these changes are really working perfectly well. A lot of testing would be required. Many people depend on the list software, breaking it is not something that will be taken lightly ;) Also avoiding such counters can be done easily by using multiple subscriptions, but indeed that would be obvious. Doug Royer wrote: Are you going to write mailing list software an provide it free of charge to implement all of this? That already exists, it is called Mailman, which is what at least @ietf.org uses and several of the lists not hosted here also. Note the X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 header in every post. The existing lists are already there, just add an extra 'full' list, subscribe the mainlist to the full list, which is quite normal with umbrella lists, and presto. Now when somebody gets suspended from the mainlist, the WG Chair can then ask the listadmin to move the subscription of the to be suspended person from the mainlist to the alternate list. Thus add on full, remove from main. The technical part is the very easy part here. It is politics and maybe more over ethnics and some other factors which are the hard parts. Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: [..full/main list..] In fact this has been implemented at least once that I know of - on the DNSO GA mailing list. The full version had relatively few subscribers. Only suspended folks or suspended-lovers (AmaViS style) would indeed be interested in following it. To avoid this we could, at first setup the full list to contain all the members of The DNSO list also has a long 'rules of order' file: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html Another variant is the ietf-censored version of the IETF list that I ran for a while, but left to others when becoming IETF chair - google claims that http://vesuvio.ipv6.tilab.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf_censored is a current page for it. I guess the main problem with this list is that the WG Chair doesn't have (much) influence on it. It is neither an official list. Also it is not clear who has been censored or not, which indeed means censoring, while IMHO we still want to allow people to voice their opinions and not simply discard them. The naming 'censored' is thus quite correct for this list but I that is also something that the IETF should steer clear from with a wide angle. Darryl (Dassa) Lynch wrote: snip I was a subscriber to both of the DNSO GA mailing lists and I do think the experiment worked for the most part. As the list isn't active any more it might be useful to get input from the members of the list that where then participating. Of course from both the I want to be on the main and on the full lists. Off-list replies for 'counting' are welcome. I've seen this a few times [..] Anything that can be done to improve participation is a good thing. Exactly my opinion. PS...I've known Jefsey online since those early DNSO and IDNO days and whilst I don't always agree
Re: too many notes -- a modest proposal Re: Proposal for keeping free speech but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)
Jeroen Massar writes: Limiting to less than 3 per day would be the same as suspending for X hours. They would both be the same only if they were carried out in the same way. If either method is applied to specific users, it's still just arbitrary censorship. If it is applied equally to everyone by a robot, then it's fair. Next to that it might also inhibit one from fixing a statement, though of course one should re-read their post before posting. Life is tough. As long as the same restrictions apply to _everyone_, no problem. Mailman is python and it should not be to difficult to add per-poster counters, but this would also require that the secretariat applies those patches and then hope that these changes are really working perfectly well. A lot of testing would be required. Many people depend on the list software, breaking it is not something that will be taken lightly ;) Also avoiding such counters can be done easily by using multiple subscriptions, but indeed that would be obvious. Excuses, excuses. The urge to manually and subjectively _censor_ is irresistibly strong, is it not? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposal for keeping free speech but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)
--On 24. januar 2006 20:46 +0100 Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My proposal to solve this issue but keeping everybody happy: Two mailinglists: wg@ietf.org + full.wg@ietf.org full.wg@ is completely open, anybody can post anything they want though hopefully on topic on the subject of the workinggroup and of course based on the source address having a subscription *1 full.wg@ is subscribed to wg@ thus full.wg gets everything preserving, at least parts, of the freedom of speech that is wanted and for the people who want to read a lot of mail everyday. In fact this has been implemented at least once that I know of - on the DNSO GA mailing list. The full version had relatively few subscribers. You can find the archives of that experiment at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaarchives.html - it's probably difficult to guess from the archives whether it was successful; better ask someone who was there at a time whether they think it worked. Another variant is the ietf-censored version of the IETF list that I ran for a while, but left to others when becoming IETF chair - google claims that http://vesuvio.ipv6.tilab.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf_censored is a current page for it. Some people liked it; I don't know what filters are currently in place for it, but it doesn't seem to be working - archives have spam in them, but no IETF list traffic, so I guess it's not working. Harald pgpREHaCB1uXV.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposal for keeping free speech but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)
| -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | On Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand | Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:10 AM | To: Jeroen Massar; ietf@ietf.org | Subject: Re: Proposal for keeping free speech but | limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan | supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin) | | | | --On 24. januar 2006 20:46 +0100 Jeroen Massar | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | My proposal to solve this issue but keeping everybody happy: | | Two mailinglists: wg@ietf.org + full.wg@ietf.org | | full.wg@ is completely open, anybody can post anything they want | though hopefully on topic on the subject of the | workinggroup and of | course based on the source address having a subscription | *1 full.wg@ | is subscribed to wg@ thus full.wg gets everything preserving, at | least parts, of the freedom of speech that is wanted and for the | people who want to read a lot of mail everyday. | | In fact this has been implemented at least once that I know | of - on the DNSO GA mailing list. The full version had | relatively few subscribers. | | You can find the archives of that experiment at | http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaarchives.html - it's probably | difficult to guess from the archives whether it was | successful; better ask someone who was there at a time | whether they think it worked. snip I was a subscriber to both of the DNSO GA mailing lists and I do think the experiment worked for the most part. I've seen this a few times and it does take a load of the main list but there are dangers in the full list becoming a dumping ground for garbage. Both lists need dedicated people to keep them functioning correctly. It all boils down to how much traffic and noise individuals can handle. It appears there are large numbers of participants who need to be sheltered a little more than others to retain their participation, not a bad thing, just a fact. Anything that can be done to improve participation is a good thing. Darryl (Dassa) Lynch PS...I've known Jefsey online since those early DNSO and IDNO days and whilst I don't always agree with him I respect his right to opinions. I haven't followed his postings to other lists but haven't seen anything here I object to with regard to posting rights. I wouldn't like to see a blanket ban placed on his postings so a full list experiment would be a preference for me. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
