I feel I must step in here. I am one of the persons that originally asked for summaries like these, and I believe I at one moment over coffee or beer asked John to (re)start posting these after the original series run by Thomas Narten did stop on June 12, 2020. Thomas explained the first summary on Jan 26 2006 with the following words: > [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.] We can discuss whether the metrics are good, bad, subjective or objective... The original idea was like this, if someone posted ten times more messages, or hundred times more words, than anyone else, then that poster should calm down. My explaination why I thought John should restart is included below, and he did indeed restart on August 16, 2020. Patrik Forwarded message: > From: Patrik Fältström <paf=40frobbit.se@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Changes in the IETF the last 20 or so years > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 08:44:25 +0200 > > I have been following "the thread" and I think read most of the messages. I have also followed many other discussions (DOH related for example, or the ISOC one related to PIR) which have been what I would call "poisonous" for the IETF. With my previous experience on IAB, IESG, ISOC BoT, ICANN/SSAC and otherwise active in the leadership for maybe far too many years, I have the following observations on specifically IETF and the IETF@xxxxxxxx mailing list. > > - As Brian wrote, we do no longer have script running Thomas Narten originally wrote that summaries weekly how many messages, and what size of those messages have been. That summary I (still) think it would makes people react a bit on postings. We should get this running, and data from it possibly used (in)formally in the SAA related activities. > > - People write too many messages, and in haste. Part from making threads explode and disables people that actually do have other $dayjob to participate. We have to remember ourselves that an inclusive policy, the one we believe we have, should not require people to repeat their point over and over again. We should encourage ourselves and each other to decrease the number of postings. > > - When discussing protocols we historically (I claim) tried to include all participants needs so that whatever was developed could be used by everyone. The amount of "you are wrong" has increased and to the level (and wording used) that I can not remember seeing 20 years ago. There might be conflicting requirements, sure, but that was dealt with in the evaluation phase. We must listen more. We should to a much higher grade accept other peoples needs. > > - Be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you receive. Also on our mailing lists. > > Patrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
