Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@xxxxxxxx

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dear David,
This could be done in extracting archives and in building a statistic program. Then it could be given to some good mathematician to find correlations. The utilisation of as much IETF mailing lists as possible over the last 10 years could permit to discover some personal behavioral pattern. The real issue is that a mailing list is polylogue and is something we have to learn about. For example we all know that one single mail may trigger hundredth of posts. The problem is not to impeach the fight, but the match use to start it.
jfc

At 03:17 27/01/2006, HarringtonDavid 73653 wrote:
Some of the analysisI think should be done:
1) is there a correlation between the posting patterns and the timely completion of milestones in a WG?

if the Charter is considered by the WG or not.
if the final report to the IESG states that the Charter was fulfilled.
if the authors of the I-D are or not preselected before the creation of the WG?

2) is there a correlation between posting patterns and the time between first publication of an I-D and its subsequent adoption by the WG?

the delay between the start of a WG and the publication of the I-D.
The number of proposed changes to the I-D. Ratio of considered, denied, adopted changes. Number of mails per results (global, per individual).
Number of never answered relevant questions.

3) is there a correlation between posting patterns and the time between adoption of an I-D by the WG and the publication as a Proposed Standard?

This is a certain number of periods which should be detailed.

4) Are there specific points in the provess when the posting pattern behaviors change? (such as after PS apporoval but before RFC publication, or during WGLC, or immediately after and updated I-D is posted?, etc.

I am not sure all that correspond to a real debate? Also it does not take into consideration external aspects, appeals, etc.

5) in the subjective view of the chairs **of many WGs, not just ones that had problem posters**, did posting behaviors help or hurt the forward progress of the WG?

Yes. But the problem is to assess if help/hurt. I would propose a simpler criteria - for each I-D Change, the delay since the proposition started. The last change. The pattern after the last change. The last change date vs. transmission to IESG.

6) maybe a survey should be done for all WG participants to get their subjective view of whether posting behaviors helped or hurt WG process

This is subjective. The best criteria is the difference between the first and last I-D and the way the changes came in (as a proposition or to block a proposition. Was that proposition to eventually get the resulting change).

The real issue I think is the consensus by exhaustion. This should be traced through the participation pattern and the number of mails to approve/disapprove a point the Chair deem consensual and the number of average participants at that time.

Another important point is the number of participants, silent or active during the life of the WG.

I would be willing to help design and document a data collection experiment to contribute to a better understanding of the factors that impact the effectiveness of IETF processes.

I would suggest a simple thing: to take a few typical mailing lists the Chairs would release the number of registered participants (at which date), to download them as a file, and to build a tool to extact statistics. From previous work in that area for @large list, the size of the mails vs. the size of someone input in the mail is an important factor, as well as the mail being trimed or not.

I am interested too in working on that.
jfc


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]