Subject: [Asrg] RE: Directing ASRG Activity

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 10:34:09 -0400

Yakov, 

I appreciate your feedback and your interest in contributing.

There are a number of work items being pursued and ideas that have been
proposed. However, overall it is difficult to identify the productive
conversations as a newcomer and also difficult to follow them from there. 

I am very much aware of the guidelines in RFC 2014 and have been working
diligently towards them including "ensuring the research group process and
content management" as well as "moderating the research group email list".
Please view the history of messages that I have posted on the mailing list
and you will notice that I have set forth the work items of the ASRG and
sought volunteers for each of these items. Some are actively being pursued
while others are not. I also set forth a labeling technique to help people
follow the different threads. Some participants used it while others decided
not to comply. As far as flaming, in the past, I responded to such threads
to the list to stop the debate. Recently, I have been responding to the
involved parties off-list. Even in situations that are not flaming, but are
individuals continuing to pursue unproductive conversation such as Dave
Crocker's recent rants about RMX, I have held off-list conversations to move
those debates off of the list until they turn productive. Recently, I began
active moderation of certain participants using the mailing list software.
The list of participants that are moderated in this manner will increase.
Persons are not happy about being included on this list, however the
productivity of this list is more important than my popularity on this list.
The purpose of this group is to contribute to solving the spam problem. I
realize that not everyone on this list has that as a priority; therefore, I
will be more stringent in determining persons that are acting in a manner
contrary to this goal and eliminate the negative effect that they have on
this group. 

One issue is that when people make clearly erroneous claims that are
unproductive, we, the productive members of this group, must refrain from
being pulled into that conversation. Once such a debate begins, it is
difficult to determine the victim.

Another thing that we will have going soon is an active website for the
group that contains all of the documents such as the list of work items,
inventory of problems, requirements, the taxonomy, and the set of solutions
that have been proposed. This will help everyone understand the status and
focus of the group especially newcomers.

This group has made progress thus far and this is just the beginning. Please
remember that this group is only two months old. We did not expect to have
the problem solved in two months. This group is not about pitching a random
set of proposals and claiming that the problem is solved. Please understand
from the charter that the phases of this group are: 1)understanding the
problem, 2)proposing and gathering solutions, and 3)evaluting those
solutions. We are positioned to have the most effect on the problem of any
previous effort. We should understand that our members include a set of the
largest ISPs, email server software providers, and virtually every anti-spam
solution provider. This as well as the relationships with spam legal
experts, email service providers, and anti-spam organizations creates a
unique ability to affect the problem and we will. 

If anyone has any other ideas towards making this group as effective as
possible, please send them directly to me. Also, if anyone wishes to
volunteer to take a more active role in these activities such as summarizing
threads etc., let me know.

Regards,
Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 8:25 AM
> To: ASRG Chair; IRTF Chair
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Directing ASRG Activity
> 
> 
> I just have been a member of the mailing list for a few days 
> and what I 
> have seen appalled me. It seems that a small "clique" of 
> people are the 
> only ones participating, and half of their discussions are 
> squabbles and 
> personal attacks against each other. It is very hard to get 
> any word in or 
> any meaningful discussion to be held.
> 
> Hereby in accordance with RFC 2014 ("IRTF Research Group 
> Guidelines"), 
> section 5.1 and 5.3, I would like to formally request that 
> the IRTF and 
> ASRG Chairs steps in and starts directing the working group. 
> Below is the 
> relevant section from the RFC:
> 
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 18:46:28 -0400

>From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
>
>At 10:34 AM -0400 5/7/03, Paul Judge wrote:
>A regular posting of an FAQ and guidelines would help address this.

RFC 2014 which governs the operation of IRTF defines an additional role of 
a "Research Group Editor/Secretary". Perhaps someone can volunteer to be 
the secretary or the Chair will appoint one, who will take care of things 
like a website, FAQ, guidelines etc. We clearly need some form of direction 
here. Here is the snippet from the RFC:

--begin snippet----
5.4. Research Group Editor/Secretary

Taking minutes and editing jointly-authored Research Group documents often 
is performed by a specifically-designated participant or set of participants.
---end snippet---

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakov Shafranovich / <[email-masked]>
SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on
the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Scott Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 19:57:10 -0700

>contrary to this goal and eliminate the negative effect that they have on

In my limited experience with other anti-spam groups, I've noticed
two dominant points of view, which I label "spam assassin" and 
"spammer assassin", though perhaps "anti-spam" and "anti-spammer"
would be more PC.

IMO, those two categories (anti-spam and anti-spammer) would be a
good first branch in any taxonomy.
Although there is of course overlap between the two, 
in general it's very difficult for those two 
philosophies to come to terms with each other.  
Statements like "the proposal wouldn't stop any spam" are viewed 
as irrelevant to one side, and a show stopper to the other.

I suggest that serious consideration
be given to the idea of splitting this into two research groups,
each working on the goals in context of those two schools of thought.

Just my $0.02

Scott Nelson <[email-masked]>