On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:22 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 4:00 PM Mary B <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Just one tidbit as far as the weekly posting list, I really didn't consider the list as much about shaming as about who was most engaged (for good or bad). There's also the basic fact that some of us are *a lot* wordier than others. I try not to get sucked into too many of these discussions but invariably when I have done so, I was often near the top of the list. Many times I was 2nd as there is one person that usually writes even longer emails than myself. > > > That tool did remind me (just not often enough) to edit my replies so that I wasn't tagged with all the bytes in an e-mail I was replying to (which, itself, could have been a reply-to-reply-to-reply-to-reply ... with no editing). > > If it had reminded me to change subject lines when the conversation drifted, it would have been perfect! .... or if it had told me "You've replied to 3 mails on this topic in <15 minutes. Perhaps this is a good time to get a cup of tea?". This shouldn't be a moderation thing, but rather something similar to Eudora's "chillis" signal for "you sounds grumpy"... W > > Best, > > Spencer > >> >> >> Regards, >> Mary. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 3:50 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 15-Aug-20 05:30, Christian Huitema wrote: >>> ...... >>> > There is something systemic here. We see that behavior too many times.. I >>> > was at the receiving end of similar abuses during the RFC-ED discussions >>> > last year and I feel the pain for Alissa, but there are many more >>> > examples. The IETF list functions as some kind of general assembly, but >>> > without any rules of order. The loudest voices dominate the stream and >>> > skew the consensus, which encourages a loudest-voice behavior and >>> > discourages consensus building. >>> > >>> > The question is, what to do? >>> >>> On a previous occasion when this question was asked, the pragmatic answer >>> was the "Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx" which basically named >>> and (mildly) shamed the most frequent or loudest speakers. >>> >>> I notice that this summary stopped on 2020-06-12, and it was never sent by >>> an official IETF tool anyway. >>> >>> Perhaps it would be good to have it back, officially. >>> >>> For the rest, please see the Subject header of this message, so I will >>> shut up now. >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian >>> -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
