Subject: Posting statistics for the IETF list

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:27:56 +0800

Top posters to the IETF list, for the period of Jan 21 to Feb 26:

  1   23   8.13 "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
  2   19  14.84 [email-masked]
  3   17  20.85 Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
  4   13  25.44 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
  5   10  28.98 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
  6    9  32.16 Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
  7    9  35.34 John C Klensin <[email-masked]>

No comment.

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:13:16 +1100

> Top posters to the IETF list, for the period of Jan 21 to Feb 26:
	[..]
> No comment.

Perhaps you should. Comment on whether this will become a regular
thing, whether the 21st of one month to the 26th of the next will
be a regular sample interval, or whether there was some other point
you really wanted to make. There are a number of conclusions we could
draw in the absence of proper guidance.

gja

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:57:35 +0100

> No comment.

That the IETF list has taken over as discussion list for DNS related 
discussions instead of namedroppers?

- kurtis -

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:44:58 -0700 (MST)

> From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>

> discussions instead of namedroppers?

Didn't it start with something about a last-call?  If so, it served
to resolve lingering doubts and crystalize consensus.

That it is so similar to previous rounds such as the TAP/IDENT "debate"
is probably irrelevant.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:33:43 +0800

> draw in the absence of proper guidance.

my impression is that mr. Bernstein has been making one single argument 23 
times, and that Dean Anderson has said that he supports Bernstein's 
argument 17 times, while Mark Andrews has said that he disagrees 19 times. 
At varying levels of detail.

While a rapid scan of the list of argumentative mails may give the 
impression that the volume of mail is 2-to-1 in favour of mr. Bernstein, I 
don't think we should attach more credibility to an argument (either pro or 
contra) because it is repeated many times.

That's what I think; others may feel differently... and no, I don't intend 
to do this often; it was just something I wondered about, and I had this 
script lying about.... the time interval is an artifact of the way I keep 
mail around....

                       Harald