Subject: [Asrg] Directing ASRG Activity

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 08:24:45 -0400

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:

5.1. IRTF Chair

    The IRTF Chair is responsible for ensuring that  Research Groups
    produce coherent, coordinated, architecturally consistent and timely
    output as a contribution to the overall evolution of the Internet
    architecture.  In addition to the detailed tasks related to  Research
    Groups outlined below, the IRTF Chair may also from time to time
    arrange for topical workshops attended by the IRSG and perhaps other
    experts in the field.

    Planning

       The IRTF Chair monitors the range of activities.  This may include
       encouraging the formation of Research Groups directly, rather than
       waiting for proposals from IRTF participants.

    Coordination of Research Groups

       The IRTF Chair coordinates the work done by the various Research
       Groups.

    Reporting

       The IRTF Chair reports on IRTF progress to the to the IAB and the
       wider Internet community (including via the IMR).

    Progress tracking

       The IRTF Chair tracks and manages the progress of the various
       Research Groups with the aid of a regular status report on
       documents and accomplishments from the Research Group Chairs. The
       resulting reports are made available to the community at large at
       regular intervals.

5.3. Research Group Chair

    The Research Group Chair is concerned with making forward progress in
    the areas under investigation, and has wide discretion in the conduct
    of Research Group business.  The Chair must ensure that a number of
    tasks are performed, either directly or by others assigned to the
    tasks.  This encompasses at the very least the following:

    Ensuring the Research Group process and content management

       The Chair has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a Research
       Group achieves forward progress.  For some  Research Groups, this
       can be accomplished by having the Chair perform all management-
       related activities.  In other  Research Groups -- particularly
       those with large or divisive participation -- it is helpful to
       allocate process and/or secretarial functions to other
       participants.  Process management pertains strictly to the style
       of Research Group interaction and not to its content.  The
       secretarial function encompasses preparation of minutes, and
       possibly editing of group-authored  documents.

    Moderate the Research Group email list

       The Chair should attempt to ensure that the discussions on this
       list are relevant and that not devolve to "flame" attacks or rat-
       hole into technical trivia.  The Chair should make sure that
       discussions on the list are summarized and that the outcome is
       well documented (to avoid repetition).

    Organize, prepare and chair face-to-face and on-line formal meetings

       The Chair should plan and announce meetings well in advance.  (See
       section on Meeting Planning for procedures.)

    Communicate results of meetings

       The Chair and/or Secretary must ensure that minutes of a meeting
       are taken.

    Distribute the work

       It is expected that all Research Group participants will actively
       contribute to the work of the group. Research Group membership is
       expected to be a long term commitment by a set of motivated
       members of the research community.  Of course, at any given time
       more of the work is likely to be done by a few participants with
       particular interests, set of skills and ideas. It is the task of
       the Chair to motivate enough experts to allow for a fair
       distribution of the workload.

    Document development

       Research Groups produce documents and documents need authors.
       However, authorship of papers related to the work of a Research
       Group is one of the primary reasons that researchers become
       members, so finding motivated authors should not be a problem.
       It is up to the Research Group to decide the authorship of papers
       resulting from Research Group activities.  In particular,
       authorship by the entire group is not required.

    Document publication

       The Chair and/or Secretary will work with the RFC Editor to ensure
       documents to be published as RFCs conform with RFC publication
       requirements and to coordinate any editorial changes suggested by
       the RFC Editor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 08:41:15 -0400

It wouldn't hurt to partition the belief systems, some of which might revist
very well traveled terrain, and some of which might do something useful.

---

From: Hadmut Danisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 15:22:17 +0200

> any meaningful discussion to be held.

You are absolutely right, you observed this very well.

This working group was under a certain kind of attack from the 
very begining. It once was going to become a technical forum where
different people were presenting different proposals and different
approaches about how to understand and fight against Spam. This is
how research and engineering should be.

Unfortunately the group was jammed by only a few (really, only
a hand full of) persons who started to attack and counterfight
any single technical thought, draw every discussion thread to a 
completely different subject and to especially cover any contribution
with a thick layer of noise. Have a look at the discussion
archive. Try to find the technical and research related
contributions. They are there, but try to find them.

Ironically, it was just the Anti-Spam working group which was 
spoiled by a certain kind of Spam. On one hand, that's a pity. 
On the other hand, take it as a (unintended) result of research.
From my point of view, this gave a good example of sabotage of
open working groups, which might also be seen as one aspect of Spam.

The reasons for objecting any effort to get rid of Spam are different,
as I learned from that group, from background, and from positive and
negative comments to my draft:

- lazyness, people don't want to clean up and organize their 
  network or change their internet lifestyle 

- political/freedom of speech: Some people believe that any kind 
  of restriction to sending arbitrary e-mail (address and message
  body) is a violation of freedom of speech

- business: Lots of people earn money with Spam or selling 
  content filters. That's a billion dollar market as we learned 
  at the last group meeting in SF. Solving the Spam problem in 
  a simple way would defeat that market.

  Some parties commercially depend on their particular business
  solution against Spam. Finding a world wide standard solution 
  would bring them in trouble.

So this particular working group is working against strong existing
interests (has this ever happened before with an IETF/IRFT working
group?) and therefore without any doubt being antagonized. 

Maybe the result of this research group is not only the end of 
a completely open mail system. It might also be the end of an 
open group system like IETF/IRTF. 

Take it as a result of research.

Hadmut