Please unsubscribe me from this list.
Thank you.
Regards,
Rose Robinson
Regards,
Rose Robinson
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 15:00 <ietf-request@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Send ietf mailing list submissions to
ietf@xxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ietf-request@xxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
ietf-owner@xxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ietf digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Bot postings, was Re: Messages from the ietf list for the
week ending Sun Oct 8 06:00:02 2023 (Carsten Bormann)
2. Re: principal effect of the bot postings (Carsten Bormann)
3. Re: principal effect of the bot postings (Keith Moore)
4. Re: Bot postings, was Re: Messages from the ietf list for the
week ending Sun Oct 8 06:00:02 2023 (Rob Sayre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 20:10:33 +0200
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@xxxxxxxxx>, IETF discussion list
<ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Bot postings, was Re: Messages from the ietf list for the
week ending Sun Oct 8 06:00:02 2023
Message-ID: <DB4B5888-E991-49BA-A7A0-03F244F7FA9B@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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.
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.
I?m very much for transparency.
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. Thank you!
Gr??e, Carsten
PS.: Tom had a constant subject "Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx?. This alone was not enough to get my mail reader to thread the messages. The message-id of the first message was <200601262014.k0QKE2nU012126@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, in case you want to reference that to obtain threading.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 20:18:36 +0200
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx>
To: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: principal effect of the bot postings
Message-ID: <2572420F-364D-44BB-AF81-F94B2D1EE1EE@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On 2023-10-15, at 15:27, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> IMO the principal effect of the bot postings (I didn't say intent) is to discourage list participants from posting any message which takes up a non-centrist position, or a position on any controversial topic.
So you don?t like the transparency the weekly summary messages (not ?the bot postings?) create?
> Because any time someone posts such a message, that person will be expected to reply to multiple responses to that message, to either defend their position, respond to objections, answer clarifying questions, etc.
Maybe not expected, but the original message will be less of a waste of time if it is clarified on request.
> IMO the IETF needs to be open to people with divergent views, and especially to people who raise legitimate concerns about IETF work that might nevertheless be unsettling to some.
Yes.
I have no idea how the transparency created by the weekly summary works against that.
Except maybe for authors that may already be self-conscious that they are misusing the channel by monopolizing the discussion without a good reason to do so.
Gr??e, Carsten
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 14:47:46 -0400
From: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: principal effect of the bot postings
Message-ID:
<31ADA397-E43F-4648-9EE9-0C663AA1F175@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> On Oct 15, 2023, at 2:18 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So you don?t like the transparency the weekly summary messages (not ?the bot postings?) create?
To the extent that such messages provide transparency, they do so through a very narrow aperture. Of all of the positive or negative qualities that I could use to rank posters and quality of their contributions, I?d rank number of posts as one of the least meaningful. But I really don?t think that transparency is the goal of these bot posts, but something closer to public shaming.
(Of course it?s easier to count the number of posts rather than estimate, say, the quality or relevance of such posts. So I see these bot posts as yet another example of the (IMO unfortunate) trend (not only in IETF) of favoring the quantities that are easier to measure over the quantities that are most meaningful.)
But different people may have different ideas of what the IETF list should be used for. I?m used to thinking of the list as existing to support an extended conversation about a variety of topics related to IETF and the Internet in general. But some may not want it to be a conversation, but rather something closer to a place to post announcements of general interest, without intending to start a discussion. I understand that desire because we?re all dealing with information overload. But I also believe that the conversation is extremely valuable for those who want to participate in it, and also for IETF.
Keith
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 11:48:52 -0700
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Bot postings, was Re: Messages from the ietf list for the
week ending Sun Oct 8 06:00:02 2023
Message-ID:
<CAChr6Szr89VS3mtP6K7jK-O7py9gtxrySGgm86kx+HHogxo8yw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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. Thank you!
If there is consensus here, then let's have a draft. It's ok if my view
loses there, but it's not ok to insist there is consensus without going
through the process.
The reason I don't like it is because I find mixing bot traffic with human
messages a bit abusive. There is no increased transparency, either. The
messages are all public. It's pretty easy to see that someone is posting
too much or getting in a flame war.
thanks,
Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/attachments/20231015/c2745b42/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ietf mailing list
ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
------------------------------
End of ietf Digest, Vol 185, Issue 30
*************************************
