Randy Bush wrote:
When I first begin to take notice a while back and last year I decided
to ask the list admin. He replied shortly and indicated there was no
moderation. I also asked a few IETF veterans, a WG chair and AD, and
they all repeated there was no moderation going on.
But I believe I read an IETF person in the list explained delays was
mostly due to moderation. If so, while I don't see any reason for it,
I was never given any notice my email would be moderated and I would
like to ask why my email is being moderated?
i know of no moderated lists. but, instead of conjecturbation, let's
debug the problem. please show the Received: and other header lines of
a message posted from your work address. or just post one now and we
can see it for ourselves. thanks.
Thanks Randy, I asked because I had replied to the last J. Klensin and
M. Banks exchange (Re: Is the IETF aging?) with my
hsantos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx account and it has yet to be posted.
These are the MUA creation sent headers and payload as shown my my MUA
and below this is my MSA/MTA server SMTP session trace showing the
transport to the list:
------------ CUT HERE ----------
Message-ID: <4FA58B0C.1010803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 16:18:20 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Is the IETF aging?
References:
<CAMm+Lwg23nd92CchxHh8br5ZM8JdiaUpKi4aj8asdSLz+i9dGA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <0CE35C09-274A-46B2-BFC6-28AEE45D2867@xxxxxxx>
<CAMm+Lwi8iOEnXxrj3-AaYVresops03LmasBs16FHk_1kaSX=Kg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<CAJNg7VK95in2XCPf2dG1f1-fNeUjzvnNqFY-FdJL4mDsU4+wxQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To:
<CAJNg7VK95in2XCPf2dG1f1-fNeUjzvnNqFY-FdJL4mDsU4+wxQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
True, but that does not mean that you should decide that there is
nothing the IETF can do to change those characteristics or is in fact
doing albeit unintentionally.
So, what would you do to adjust things ?
Regards
Marshall
Some suggestions:
- Increase IETF brand awareness
- Leverage the IETF Brand
- FaceBook page
- Twitter account
- Better On-line Access/Participation
- Forums based communications
- Offer personalization profiling
- Photos, etc, "face behind name"
- IETF "Radio"
- Encourage elders, veterans Mentoring
- ID, RFC development
- Discourage "Use Usual Editors" mindset
- Consider "PWG "Preliminary Working Groups" to sense full WG
- Often decision left to the certain few (high barrier)
on an indirect but I believe part of the improving IETF
brand and image:
- Serious review of "Rough Consensus" process
- Technical Advisors need to get involved earlier
- Leverage Assets
- RFC format as a Tech Writing model for Engineering Students
- Professional Trade member/certification "badge"
- IETF membership subscriptions
- Discounts
- Seek more academia, industry, govt joint ventures
- Summer "IETF" Internship
- Start up, grants
- Resource site
- Assistance, Awareness with Legal, IP issues (international, etc)
- Personally, increase the quality of work, minimize the "Fix it
later" mindset - major turn off for young people IMV.
And perhaps, hire a PR, technical sales consultant who knows the
subtleties of what comes first; Marketing or Technology.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
jabber: hector@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------ CUT HERE ----------
And the following is my host MTA output smtp session trace to the
list. You can see the MUA to MSA and router MTA send off time diff
only by 12-13 secs. The message has not been list processed yet as of
this post (or I have not received it yet by my host).
------- CUT HERE ---------
**************************************************************************
Wildcat! ESMTP Server v6.4.454.1
SMTP log started at Sat, 05 May 2012 16:18:31
Connection Time: 20120505 16:18:31 cid: 00000000 tid: 1540
SSL Enabled: YES
Message Queue: d:\spool\santronics\smtp\22516W
Destination: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Mail Host IP: 12.22.58.30:25 (mail.ietf.org)
Attempt #1 LastAttempt: n/a
16:18:31.058 (1540.0075260) ** Opening Connection to host:
mail.ietf.org ip: 12.22.58.30:25
16:18:31.916 (1540.0075260) S: 220 ietfa.amsl.com ESMTP Postfix
16:18:31.916 (1540.0075260) C: EHLO dkim.winserver.com
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-ietfa.amsl.com
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-PIPELINING
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-SIZE 67108864
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-ETRN
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-8BITMIME
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250 DSN
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) C: MAIL FROM:<hsantos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
16:18:32.088 (1540.0075260) S: 250 2.1.0 Ok
16:18:32.088 (1540.0075260) C: RCPT TO:<ietf@xxxxxxxx>
16:18:33.180 (1540.0075260) S: 250 2.1.5 Ok
16:18:33.180 (1540.0075260) C: DATA
16:18:33.258 (1540.0075260) S: 354 End data with <CR><LF>.<CR><LF>
16:18:33.461 (1540.0075260) S: 250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 20B0821F85FF
16:18:33.461 (1540.0075260) C: QUIT
16:18:33.555 (1540.0075260) S: 221 2.0.0 Bye
16:18:33.555 (1540.0075260) ** Completed. Elapsed Time: 2543 msecs
------- CUT HERE ---------
Thanks for your interest
--
HLS