--On Sunday, 15 October, 2023 20:10 +0200 Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2023-10-15, at 16:44, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> given a weekly posting that, >> with some interruptions, has been occurring for a decade or >> more (Ole's estimate; I'd guess much more) > > Since 2006-01-26, to be exact. Thanks. I was obviously too lazy to dig through the archives. But, a very long time as these things go. Possibly also worth noting that Thomas stepped down as Internet AD only the prior March. > Tom introduced the first message of the series with: > >> [note: I find this type of summary to be a useful tool for >> highlighting certain aspects of list traffic. With Brian >> Carpenter's blessing, I plan on making this a regular feature >> for the ietf list.] > > (Brian Carpenter was IETF chair from 2005 to 2007.) > > There were two responses, both from people who (17+ years > later) I believe weren't exactly enthused about the > additional transparency this created. So, reaching back to Rob's comment about community consensus: Thomas asked Brian, Brian apparently didn't see its being worth a large fuss (he can speak for himself on that), Thomas asked the list, there were only two responses that were "not exactly enthused", someone -- Thomas, Brian, the IESG -- concluded there was not enough opposition to justify a fuss, and the postings started and continued. That is certainly consistent with how we did things 18 or so years ago... not requiring I-Ds or even formal consensus calls when some thing appeared to be reasonable and not very controversial. Claiming "no community consensus" would be a stretch for this and any number of other decisions that were made at the same time. Did it create additional transparency? Hard to know either then or now: the answer, IMO at least, depends on far more careful analysis of what those numbers actually told us then... and about what they tell us now when far more discussions that would have occurred on the IETF list then (including, e.g., the tools, admin-discuss, and EODIR (and its predecessors) lists as well as the Last Call one and some discussions leading to BOFs). But I don't see anyone with the needed energy and, ideally, statistically trained skepticism, volunteering to put the time in. That doesn't, IMO, make the postings useless or harmful but it does suggest that we should be careful about over-interpreting it, much less (as has been pointed out repeatedly) using it as a tool to shame and/or shut down discussions. Do we need more protection against misuse of the postings? Maybe but that is, at least IMO, definitely part of the broader issues that Stephen has suggested was should be looking at more seriously. >... > Disclaimer: I'm also very specifically part of the (mostly > silent) consensus that has supported receiving these weekly > messages since 2006, with a gap until JohnL filled it again. And I'm part of the (mostly silent) consensus who have been happy to see those postings continue because some people indicate they find them useful and we have see little harm to anyone else. If I said anything 17+ years ago (can't remember and, if I did, whether it was on a public list or a note to Thomas and/or Brian), that would have been, approximately, it. Whether that could be construed as "not enthused about additional transparence" is another question entirely. best, john
