Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
John Levine wrote: Despite currently excessive number of comments, I think we should invite more comments and make it easier, not harder to send them. Even if traffic on the list is now too high and information content per message is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF Last Call stage is too low. The problem isn't sending the comments, it's getting people to read drafts, think about them, and offer cogent comments. It is not clear if you imply that people read more the comments than the drafts. However, comments and drafts are not formally linked. For an example of a different approach, those who commented on the GPLv3 draft saw its web interface. Text had different colors according to the number of comments related to a given snippet. One could click on the text to browse related comments, and possibly answer or add to them. Perhaps, we could send comments to ietf-opaquelinkto...@ietf.org, where one can get such token while viewing the draft with a web tool, in order to link a comment to a specific section of the relevant draft's text. This or similar technique would allow to formally link the drafts to their comments, without altering the current work flow. More web links to the drafts, e.g. attached to a message while removing the opaque token before resending, may result in more draft lookups. Just a thought. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Jari Arkko wrote: Despite currently excessive number of comments, I think we should invite more comments and make it easier, not harder to send them. Even if traffic on the list is now too high and information content per message is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF Last Call stage is too low. I don't have a problem with the number of messages. Deleting is easy. But I wouldn't mind stricter enforcement of the Subject lines... Note that this opinion is entirely separate from the value of the comments. Repetition and mail bombing is not valuable. Well justified opinions are very valuable. The latter may come from both inside and outside the IETF; sometimes experts on some topic can be persuaded to send in a comment, but not to subscribe to lists or engage in lengthy debate. I think anyone who posts to the IETF list should have his unsubscribe function disabled for a week. That seems like a punishment that fits the crime. (despite the obvious workarounds) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Jari Arkko wrote: Note that this opinion is entirely separate from the value of the comments. Repetition and mail bombing is not valuable. Well justified opinions are very valuable. The latter may come from both inside and outside the IETF; sometimes experts on some topic can be persuaded to send in a comment, but not to subscribe to lists or engage in lengthy debate. I think anyone who posts to the IETF list should have his unsubscribe function disabled for a week. That seems like a punishment that fits the crime. (despite the obvious workarounds) But first, subscribing must be required, or automatic with the post confirmtion. I thought my 2 day penalty box was radical, but a week would be fine with me. Dave Morris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
The problem isn't sending the comments, it's getting people to read drafts, think about them, and offer cogent comments. It is not clear if you imply that people read more the comments than the drafts. However, comments and drafts are not formally linked. It doesn't matter whether they read the drafts in a multi-colored hyperlinked web interface or hand lettered on parchment. But comments from people who haven't read what they're commenting on are, as we have just seen, unlikely to be of use to anyone. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
From: David Morris d...@xpasc.com
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
I think anyone who posts to the IETF list should have his unsubscribe
function disabled for a week.
That seems like a punishment that fits the crime.
But first, subscribing must be required, or automatic with the post
confirmtion. I thought my 2 day penalty box was radical, but a week
would be fine with me.
Don't I seem to recall people complaining recently, and with some heat, that
someone was subscribing people to a mailing list, and not letting them
unsubscribe?
Yes, this is different (a week only in the box), and presumably there would
be a warning ('if you subscribe to this list, you'll be here for a minimum of
a week'), but still...
Noel
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Despite currently excessive number of comments, I think we should invite more comments and make it easier, not harder to send them. Even if traffic on the list is now too high and information content per message is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF Last Call stage is too low. The problem isn't sending the comments, it's getting people to read drafts, think about them, and offer cogent comments. As we've been seeing, the comment step when not preceded by the reading and thinking steps is at best useless. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Noel Chiappa wrote: (Discussion deleted) I think these (and the per-draft mailboxes others have mentioned) are probably all steps in a long-term plan, with the eventual optimum system being the web-based thing you mention. What is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here? I think most of us like to see LC comments related to the drafts that they are somehow involved with (author, WG participant, etc). Posting those comments to the ietf list takes care of that, without work or effort from anybody. Most of the 250+ drafts that go last call every year, generate no comments on the list. The TLS draft is an exception with 100's of replies. However, I cannot remember any similar cases in the last 10 years. Pressing delete 100 times worked for me, that is a few minutes of work in a 10 year period, in other words no work at all. Do we really want to introduce all kinds of complex procedures just based on one incident? Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
From: Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net What is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here? Having people's mailboxes explode from ill-considered public pressure campaigns? At the start, I got as much email in one hour as I often get in a week. Do we really want to introduce all kinds of complex procedures just based on one incident? Well, it's not the first time - the FSF pulled the same stunt back in October of 2007. And no doubt, if it continues to be allowed, it will happen again. My original proposal was very simple: create one more list as a formal notice place for LC's, since many of the FSF drive-by posters were saying 'but, but your LC said send comments here'. Anyway, nothing is stopping an IETF person from sending email to the IETF list about something they want to bring up there, so if an LC has something that really bugs someone in the IETF, they can still send email to the IETF list about it. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Despite currently excessive number of comments, I think we should invite more comments and make it easier, not harder to send them. Even if traffic on the list is now too high and information content per message is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF Last Call stage is too low. I don't have a problem with the number of messages. Deleting is easy. But I wouldn't mind stricter enforcement of the Subject lines... Note that this opinion is entirely separate from the value of the comments. Repetition and mail bombing is not valuable. Well justified opinions are very valuable. The latter may come from both inside and outside the IETF; sometimes experts on some topic can be persuaded to send in a comment, but not to subscribe to lists or engage in lengthy debate. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
From: HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS jhua...@att.com
We shouldn't assume that FSF will not learn from feedbacks
Well, I don't know. RMS's intial response to my lengthy note (which I CC'd
this list, I tried to make it productive in tone) to the FSF board (although
the FSF is still basically RMS, as far as I can make out) was not indicative
of a change in course; and their appeals page was updated a day later, but
left basically unchanged - it continued to call for sending email to
i...@ietf.org.
And no doubt, if it continues to be allowed, it will happen again.
Perhaps seemingly encouraged (I meant, by the wording of the LC) would have
been a better phrase than allowed.
Isn't that the right price to pay for an open forum?
You will note that I explicitly did not, in my suggested change to the LC, say
close the IETF list to non-subscriber posts. However, that's a long way from
hanging out a Kick Me sign, which is what the current LC text ('send
comments to ietf@ietf.org') effectively amounts to, for those who don't
carefully read it, and notice that it's directed to 'the IETF community'.
If you know the secret handshake
That's rather unfair.
The IETF web site is easily findable, and we impose no barrier of any kind
(cost, qualifications, etc) to anyone joining any of our email lists. The
IETF is hardly a secret society which is picky about new blood - almost
_everyone_ on this list these days is 'new' since the 'old days' (circa 1970s
for a few of us).
Noel
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu]
From: HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS jhua...@att.com
We shouldn't assume that FSF will not learn from feedbacks
...
- it continued to call for sending email to i...@ietf.org.
Point taken. But still, FSF and RMS may hold philosophically rigid
positions, they surely can't turn a deaf ear to proposals to help them
get their reasoned position heard, which is to say this and like future
email campaigns do nothing to IETF community's receptiveness to FSF's
advocated position, a well thought-out note from the FSF would suffice.
Isn't that the right price to pay for an open forum?
You will note that I explicitly did not, in my suggested change to the
LC, say
close the IETF list to non-subscriber posts. However, that's a long
way from
hanging out a Kick Me sign, which is what the current LC text ('send
comments to ietf@ietf.org') effectively amounts to, for those who don't
carefully read it, and notice that it's directed to 'the IETF
community'.
As someone else pointed out earlier, asking only the IETF community to
respond to LC and even explicitly state that one should only respond
(to LC) if he's subscribed to foo and bar IETF mailing list will
probably not deter people from 'drive-by' subscribing and posting of
knee-jerk comments. So it doesn't really solve the problem. Even IETF
participants can and do get their posting 'right' suspended for various
reasons so the problem is not strictly from 'outside people'.
If you know the secret handshake
That's rather unfair.
But that's what will amount to if (1) IETF announces that comments to LC
be posted to a new mailing list; and (2) only the regulars know that
the real place to be heard is at ietf@ietf.org; and (3) no regulars
would take the risk to subscribe to the new mailing list. So no comment
on the new mailing list would effectively be heard.
[The] IETF is hardly a secret society which is picky about new blood
This is certainly not what my post was supposed to imply.
Noel
Jerry Huang
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
From: HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS jhua...@att.com asking only the IETF community to respond to LC and even explicitly state that one should only respond (to LC) if he's subscribed to foo and bar IETF mailing list will probably not deter people from 'drive-by' subscribing and posting of knee-jerk comments. Hence my suggestion of a separate mailing list. If the only list mentioned in the LC is ietf-comments, I think people are not likely to find ietf on their own. Oh, and that suggestion that we change the wording to be The IESG solicits final comments from the IETF community on whether the IETF community has consensus to publish - that would be a good idea to do if we _don't_ set up a separate mailbox. If we _did_, we should leave it out, so that the public _does_ have someplace to send comments. Still, IMO 'one mailbox, no public comments' and 'one mailbox, accept public comments' are both inferior (for different reasons) to 'two mailboxes, accept public comments'. But that's what will amount to if .. (3) no regulars would take the risk to subscribe to the new mailing list. So no comment on the new mailing list would effectively be heard. I was not recommended that the new mailbox be a bit-bucket - I explicitly called for it to be monitored by someone(s) who would bring anything novel and/or significant to all our attention. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
On 2009-02-13 21:15, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: Noel Chiappa wrote: (Discussion deleted) I think these (and the per-draft mailboxes others have mentioned) are probably all steps in a long-term plan, with the eventual optimum system being the web-based thing you mention. What is exactly the problem we're trying to solve here? Henk, at least in my mind it is *not* solving the outlier case of an organised mail bombing; pretty much any solution that remains in the IETF spirit of openness will be subject to some kind of bombing (and probably should be, if we're serious about being an open [dis]organisation). In my mind the problem is how to collect and classify all the comments on a given draft, so that the authors, the WG, the IESG, and anyone else who needs to, can review them all. Being able to do that easily would be a significant benefit for the efficiency of document review. and would help make our process more transparent. I think most of us like to see LC comments related to the drafts that they are somehow involved with (author, WG participant, etc). Posting those comments to the ietf list takes care of that, without work or effort from anybody. Not so, if people disrespect the request to retain the subject header of the Last Call message. I assure you from my time on the IESG, when I was supposed to have an opinion about the consensus from every Last Call, that the lack of fully automatic sorting of comments was a major pain. It's even worse when the IESG or IAB needs to review a document's history because of an appeal. Most of the 250+ drafts that go last call every year, generate no comments on the list. And that's a problem in itself. The TLS draft is an exception with 100's of replies. However, I cannot remember any similar cases in the last 10 years. Pressing delete 100 times worked for me, that is a few minutes of work in a 10 year period, in other words no work at all. I agree completely; it's not the main problem. Do we really want to introduce all kinds of complex procedures just based on one incident? No... as explained above. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
--On Friday, February 13, 2009 17:40 +0200 Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote: ... I don't have a problem with the number of messages. Deleting is easy. But I wouldn't mind stricter enforcement of the Subject lines... ... If you wanted something that would work as well or better than Subject lines, and that would actually make things easier if, as is periodically the case, the discussion of a particular document diverges into different subthreads, consider using subaddresses that are different for, and unique to, each Last Call. Subaddresses are not as widely used and supported on the net as some of us think they should be. However, the usual comments about dogfood-eating apply as, perhaps, does the observation that anyone without sufficient clues to send a message to a mailbox that uses a subaddress may be someone we, in fact, don't need to hear from. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
