Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "bill" <bill@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "'todd glassey'" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:11 AM Subject: RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers > I would agree in as much as the metric for the productivity of a > programmer is KLOC. > > I don't think you could define a unique e-mail in any sense of the word > - and even then, know the quality of the technical opinion behind that > e-mail address. The quality of the person behind the email address is totally non-sequitor to the question at hand. The QUALITY of the participants efforts are not relevent to the question of whether the world at large was allowed to participate. That is purely a QUANTITY ISSUE and not attached to the competence or reasonability of any of the suggestions in the hopper. - Todd > > Bill > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of todd > glassey > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:57 PM > To: bill > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers > > > Bill - you are missing the picture. The ultimate number of bodies that > the IETF can count on are those unique email addresses. No one said they > were any particular Vetting Initiative but rather the total possible > number of "representative opinions" that any consensus could possibly > count on - assuming an "across the Organizational breadth" as the > metric. > > The IETF is supposed to be representative of the people of the world and > their representatives to the task of building Internet protocols, right? > So then the unique email addresses are a direct metric on how well the > world is represented. Wouldn't you say? > > Todd > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "bill" <bill@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "'todd glassey'" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 7:46 PM > Subject: RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers > > > > I disagree with your analysis todd. > > > > The strength of the IETF is not in the number of unique e-mail address > > > on its e-mail lists (define unique - I have subscribed from probably > > 10 e-mail addresses over the years - many people I know are subscribed > > > with multiple "unique" addresses - many address in reality point to > > archiving services, other reflectors, peoples inboxes that don't look > > at the e-mail > > Thats a problem with the Registration Process then. > > > > > So I don't think you can even count the number of unique e-mail > > addresses - but if you could - > > > > Peoples technical content/quality very widely, some input is worthless > > > (or close to it) and many just monitor what is going on... Other > > e-mail is critical - either in technical content, providing an > > alternative viewpoint etc. > > What has that to do with how many possible opinions are available > herein? > > > > > The strength of the IETF is that it is a gathering point for all of > > these people. > > You mean the mailing lists right? - so count the members... > > > Not a quantity of e-mail addresses that can be spammed or something > > else > > Bill - you have not discounted or invalidated anything I have said > here. My comment stands. > > > > > Bill > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ietf@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > > todd glassey > > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 5:09 PM > > To: Bruce Campbell > > Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Christian Huitema; ietf@xxxxxxxx; > > problem-statement@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers > > > > > > Bruce - > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bruce Campbell" <bruce.campbell@xxxxxxxx> > > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Christian > > Huitema" <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; > > <problem-statement@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:59 AM > > Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers > > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, todd glassey wrote: > > > > > > > What was the attendance of the last meeting then? and also what > > > > then > > > > > > is > > the > > > > sum total of unique EMail Addresses in the Lists then too? I.e. > > > > what > > > > > > is > > the > > > > total size of the Vetting Community Resource that the IETF brings > > > > to > > > > > > the Party as an enterprise/org??? > > > > > > Are you sure that you can count the (large) number of subscribers > > > that > > > > > are on the main IETF lists, and the umpteen WG lists, as > > > participants? > > > > participants as far as meetings are concerned? no - obviously not, but > > > this pool of good email addresses constitute the core value of the > > IETF, that being its Vettig Pool. So yes indeed, and also remember > > that the IETF is a voluntary particpation standards process and > > platform, and that the reliable email addresses for this "Vetting > > Pool" is what the core of the IETF's ideas are vetted against. So put > > on your "organizational leader's" hat and then ask me the same > > question - > > > > > There > > > seem to be a lot of people who are subscribed to various > > > IETF-related lists who do not seem to participate in the IETF > > > discussions. > > > > But the point is that they have the option. Its their choice as to > > whether to participate of not. > > > > > > > > ( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who participate > > > in > > the > > > IETF ) > > > > I agree - so lets ask the question again, how many unique names are > > there in the lists - what's the total 'verified email addresses' that > > make up the total of the vetting pool? - 5000 - 10000 - 50000? what is > > > it? Harald? - this seems like a number that you as the Chair of the > > IETF would not only be proud of, but would also have on the top of > > your head on a monthly basis... Any ideas as to the number? > > > > Todd > > > > > > > > > > --==-- > > > Bruce. > > > > > >