Subject: Mail sent to midcom (fwd)

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:07:39 +0000 (GMT)

IETF mailing lists are intended for OPEN discussion; the benefits
(cross-pollination between lists, lack of inhibition about stating
your opinions) are widely recognised as outweighing widely-accepted
drawbacks (e.g. Peter Lewis advertising every forum everywhere he can
think of, allisat going on yet another hallucinogen-induced trip down
memory lane).

midcom is not open. midcom should not be part of the IETF, much less a
working group. 

No, I don't care that having a moderator-in-the-middle filtering
everything is in the spirit of the midcom charter and must be for my
own good. I _really_ don't like the concept of an IETF-approved
poster to a mailing list on an IETF-run server.

We can do our own filtering, if we choose to, and we don't need the
IETF to do it for us. Moderator approval of individual posters is
outside the spirit of RFC2418, and would require AD and IESG approval.

What are we coming to?

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:00:40 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Mail sent to midcom

Your mail to 'midcom' with the subject:

    Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.

The reason it is being held:

    Only approved posters may post without moderator approval.

Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
notification of the moderator's decision.

---

From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:31:42 -0500

> poster to a mailing list on an IETF-run server.

Given how trivially easy it is to subscribe to midcom and
other IETF mailing lists I'm not sure that it's appropriate
to describe the filtering process as anything but completely
loose.  I'm also not certain that I see the value in having
people who don't read a mailing list posting to it, but okay,
whatever.  Complain about Allisat if you will, but at least
he was subscribed to the mailing lists to which he was posting
(Peter Lewis and the folks at Upperside are just spammers).

The mailing list as delivered unto us by the IETF administrator
has a preset policy of holding email from someone not on the
mailing list until it's released by an administrator.  We can
change that if people feel sufficiently strongly.  

Melinda

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:15:28 +0000 (GMT)

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Melinda Shore wrote:

> mailing list until it's released by an administrator. 

That is not what the message said.

People posting from multiple or changing addresses are presumably
inconvenienced, since you're checking the email address, not the
person.

So, two specific complaints:

1. unclear message, privately described to me as 'kind of offensive'.
   (you could fire subscription information and a copy of the list
   charter with pointers to workgroup drafts etc. at new email
   addresses not previously seen along with an
   if-you've-seen-this-sorry preface, however. That would be useful
   and inclusive.)

2. morally wrong, contrary to the open inclusive spirit of the
   IETF and just plain risky to be holding *any* email for a
   discussion list for moderator approval in the first place. RFC2418,
   chapter and verse. It's a starting step down a slippery slope. We
   don't want to go there.

L.

is apparently 'approved' by quite a number of IETF mailing lists.

> We can change that if people feel sufficiently strongly.  
> 
> Melinda

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:20:27 -0500

> change that if people feel sufficiently strongly.  

For me it's completely UNacceptable to expect people to subscribe to an
IETF mailing list in order to post to it.  MIDCOM is an example of
a group that could potentially have huge effects on other protocols;
it's important for such a group to be able to accept input from,
and have discussions with other groups, without expecting all of the
participants to subscribe to that group.

However, I have no problem with having postings from non-subscribers 
screened by a moderator - PROVIDED that the moderator forwards anything 
to the list that could POSSIBLY be legitimate for the list, and that
he/she does so in a timely fashion.  The role of the moderator in this
case is to act as an intelligent spam filter, not to influence the 
discussion.  

(This might actually work better if the poster does not get a message
saying that his posting is being held for screening.)

There's another subtlety here - lists that filter mail from non-subscribers
penalize folks who use subaddressing for incoming list mail, since they
don't post from the same address at which they are subscribed.  Ideally,
lists should not consider subaddresses when comparing a contributor's
address against the list of subscribers.  Failing that, it's helpful if
a subscriber can get his "From" address registered as one for which there
is special permission to post.

Keith

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:49:46 -0500

Although it is true that RFC2418 does not explicitly permit the "review"
of messages submitted to elists from non-subscribers, it is in fact an
accepted practice on IETF elists.  So much so that the IESG has
published a statement regarding the policy and procedures of such
practices:

    http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt

Speaking for myself, I wish that all IETF elists could and would adopt
the practice of reviewing all non-subscriber submissions for at least
obvious irrelevance.  If someone has the time it would be nice to have a
more careful review to ensure messages are on-topic as described by a
Working Group's charter, but that is certainly not required.  The first
would go a long way towards eliminating spam on IETF elists.

Just to be clear, I'm making a distinction between moderation and review
to reject obvious irrelevance.  In that context, I agree with you that
the phrasing in the notification message you received could be improved,
but I think it's an unfair leap from "reviewing messages" to "midcom is
not open" without even asking what the actual policy and practice is and
confirming whether or not the AD and IESG are aware of it.  Melinda's
note makes it clear, at least to me, that the policy is consistent with
the spirit of RFC2418 and the IESG statement indicated above.

Speaking as Co-Chair of this working group, unless you have a specific
request for a change to RFC2418 or the IESG statement, I don't see any
basis for continued discussion of this point on the poised elist.

If you object to how the midcom elist is operating you need to take that
up with the midcom-admin and the relevant AD.

Jim
co-Chair of the POISSON Working Group

Subject: Mail sent to midcom (fwd)
From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 17:07:39 +0000 (GMT)

What are we coming to?

L.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:48:13 +0000 (GMT)

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, James M Galvin wrote:

> of messages submitted to elists from non-subscribers,

correct.

> it is in fact an accepted practice on IETF elists.

(or elitists, as they perhaps should be known?)

I like to request a public list of those lists. It would be
interesting to spot any patterns in the data.

> So much so that the IESG has published a statement regarding the
> policy and procedures of such practices:
> 

Note the use in that statement of the terms 'might be needed',
'persistent' and 'excessive'. midcom's list policy clearly does not
fall within that scope (a single email from me to midcom is neither
persistent nor excessive).

> obvious irrelevance.

The IESG statement does not cover that. RFC2418 does not cover that.

> to reject obvious irrelevance. 

irrelevance and its obviousness is in the eye of the beholder. I would
be extremely worried if messages were suppressed because e.g. a WG
chair had deemed a matter to be settled and would not permit further
discussion because further discussion is irrelevant (thinking of e.g.
recent heated EF technical debate on diffserv).

That's where this is heading.

> In that context, I agree with you that the phrasing in the
> notification message you received could be improved, but I think
> it's an unfair leap from "reviewing messages" to "midcom is not
> open" without even asking what the actual policy and practice is
> and confirming whether or not the AD and IESG are aware of it.

Just to be clear: midcom's policy falls outside stated IESG policy,
and we've agreed that it is not permitted by RFC2418.

midcom is reviewing messages, based on email address and then
content. midcom is not open. There's a direct causal relationship
between those two statements.

> Melinda's
> the spirit of RFC2418 

see your first sentence...

> and the IESG statement indicated above.

which it isn't.

> request for a change to RFC2418 or the IESG statement,

I'd like a statement that RFC2418 will be adhered to by mailing lists.

> I don't see any basis for continued discussion of this point on
> the poised elist.

so future emails will be filtered by the moderator?

> up with the midcom-admin and the relevant AD.

done. on cc. On open IETF lists, I have the right to post what you
deem to be rubbish, and you have the right to choose to ignore me (and
the satisfaction of doing so). midcom's policy limits those rights a
priori without consensus or even persistent complaints from list
members.

regards,

L.

www.isoc.org: 'ISOC is active in areas such as censorship'. No kidding.

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:36:05 -0500

I believe most IETF WG mailing lists restrict automatic posting to
those subscribed and a list of other from addresses. As a practical
matter, in this age of spam, that is considered "open" and, if not in
place, is commonly demanded by a consensus of the WG.  Every WG is a
little different and I believe these sorts of policies should be
determined on a WG by WG basis by the WG chair, the WG consensus, and
the AD.

From:  Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date:  Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:48:13 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To:  [email-masked]
To:  James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
cc:  [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
            Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>, Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To:  <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

>> of messages submitted to elists from non-subscribers,

It doesn't explicitly prohibit it either.

>interesting to spot any patterns in the data.

I don't think there is and don't see why there would be a centralized
list of specific WG mailing list policies.  Both the TRADE and XMLDSIG
WG's, which I chair and co-chair respectively, block most
non-subscriber posting.  I consider this to be consistent with RFC
2418 and in both cases the policies were installed early in the WG
existence after numerous complaints by WG members about spam.

>persistent nor excessive).

I interpret moderation to be the human review and approval of all
messages that get to the list.  Any WG that permits unrestricted
posting after you subscribe is not moderated.

>recent heated EF technical debate on diffserv).

As long as WG chairs are trusted to determine WG consensus, I don't
see why they can't determine if a message is obviously irrelevant to
the tasks for which a WG was created.  I'm not claiming a WG chair
would never make a mistake but their decision are subject to
review. Anyway since those who subscribe can post whatever they want,
judgement usually doesn't enter the picture.

>and we've agreed that it is not permitted by RFC2418.

As far as I can see, midcom's policy is unrelated to the IESG policy,
which covers manual moderation of all posting.  Nor do I see any
agreement that it is not permitted by RFC 2418.  It depends on what
"open" means.  The definition of words changes with circumstances.  In
the country or the early Internet, an open house might have no lock or
guard and a host might, as many did, have a "guest" account with no
password.  In the middle of Manhattan or the modern Internet, open
means you have locks and guards and you usually check out people who
haven't gone through a procedure to get on an access list.

>between those two statements.

I believe your definition of open differs from mine.

>see your first sentence...

In which he said that such a policy was not explicitly permitted in
2418 which is not at all saying that it is prohibited.

>I'd like a statement that RFC2418 will be adhered to by mailing lists.

In my opinion, it is being adhered to. In any case, it is not the job
of any particular WG, even POISSON, to be a policeman over other WGs.

>so future emails will be filtered by the moderator?

The poised mailing list is not moderated.

>deem to be rubbish, and you have the right to choose to ignore me (and

No, you do not have an unlimited right to post what Jim Galvin
considers rubbish, for certain definitions of rubbish, on the poised
mailing list, since he is a co-chair of the working group.  Nor do you
have any unlimited right to post what Fred Baker, as IETF chair,
considers rubblish, for certain definitions of rubbish, on the IETF
list. If these facts mean that the poised and ietf lists don't meet
your definition of open, so be it.

><[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

Donald

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:09:22 -0500

> those subscribed and a list of other from addresses.

I have the opposite belief.  I've been using subaddresses for several 
years (so I wasn't posting from the same address at which I was receiving
list mail) and most of the lists in which I've participated did not
restrict such postings.  It's only very recently that I've seen a
significant problem.

Keith

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 07:15:51 -0500

Lloyd,

> priori without consensus or even persistent complaints from list

Are you asserting that you (and anyone else for that matter) have the
right to spam an IETF mailing list and that filtering/moderating such
messages is inappropriate? I would be surprised if there is widespread
support for such a view.

What complicates the overall issue is that in all the cases I'm aware
of where "moderating" goes on, it is to reduce spam. I suspect few
people would argue that spam filtering is an unacceptable "censorship"
in practice.  However, because spam filters can make mistakes, it is
highly desirable (as a sanity check/second opinion) for a human to
double check automatic rejections.  Unfortunately, having a human look
at a message and decide whether to forward it on will always be viewed
as moderation/censorship by some regardless of the reasons for doing
so.

Consider the two extremes: automatic spam filters in which no human
has chance to overrule an automatic rejection, and completely open
mailing lists with no anti-spam filters. Neither of these seems to be
desired in the majority of cases, and any in-betweens would appear to
require some level of human "moderation".

Thomas

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:01:37 -0500

I really don't want to participate in a flame-war about "moderation",
but

Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]> wrote:
> the tasks for which a WG was created. 

   It is a bad idea to assign to the same person the tasks of limiting
_input_ to a discussion and determining the _output_ of a discussion.

   We should _try_ to move away from any discussion of whether our
leaders are "trustworthy", and instead discuss whether the _structures_
in place are designed correctly to achieve our purposes.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:28:32 -0800

Lloyd and all,

  I am heartened to read your post and somewhat encouraged to see that
other than myself and a very few others that someone has the courage
to stand up for open discourse and free exchange of ideas on the IETF
mailing lists.  I for one agree with you that if filtering is needed by
participants on any IETF mailing list it can be done on the participant
level not through a moderator of any sort.  Using a moderator is
paramount to selective censorship.  And any form of censorship is
wrong....

> notification of the moderator's decision.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 15:23:11 -0500

> loose.  

you're missing the point.  one shouldn't have to jump through extra
hoops (even if they're trivial to jump through) just to contribute 
to a working group discussion.

> I'm also not certain that I see the value in having
> whatever.  

for midcom it's especially valuable, since a number of people in
midcom seem to think that they have the right to redesign the
architecture of the Internet.  they definitely need clue inputs 
from elsewhere.

Keith

---

From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:40:18 -0500

> to a working group discussion.

Please note:  one doesn't have to jump through hoops.

At any rate, I've opened up the mailing list, not because
the arguments here have been particularly (or even mildly)
compelling but because the notification that's sent to 
people whose messages are being held for manual release 
is misleading and a tad obnoxious and it can't be edited 
by the list admin.  Better to get rid of it completely.

Melinda