Subject: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:40:15 -0700

The statement that you issued repeatedly mentions that the IETF rules
and social contract were establish at a time when the IETF had 50 to 250
or 50 to 300 members. The obvious implication is that, since the
attendance has grown by an order of magnitude, the rules have to change
significantly.

The problem is that the 50-300 numbers are wrong. The original rules of
the IETF were indeed devised in 1986, when the IETF was just created and
had maybe 30-50 members. However, the current rules were designed in
1992-1993, in large part because the IETF had outgrown the previous
rules. If you look at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/past.meetings.html,
you will see that the attendance then was in the 500-700 range. Dave
Clark's statement was made during the 24th IETF, held July 13-17, 1992
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. There were 677 attendees.

Since then, the IETF has grown, and then shrunk. The current size is
about double the size of 1992. That is significant, but not quite an
order of magnitude.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 21:34:45 -0800

Christian,

thanks for the correction.
We can quibble about the exact dates for a while, but I've made the quip 
quite a few times that the IETF has a fine scalable management structure, 
which will scale all the way to 700 participants...... so I agree that 
"order of magnitude" is a misnomer.

We do, however, have trouble, even at our currently reduced size.

                 Harald

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:15:43 -0800

Harald,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

> > in Cambridge, Massachusetts. There were 677 attendees.

What was the attendance of the last meeting then? and also what then is the
sum total of unique EMail Addresses in the Lists then too? I.e. what is the
total size of the Vetting Community Resource that the IETF brings to the
Party as an enterprise/org???

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Oct 2003 19:33:31 +0000

> We do, however, have trouble, even at our currently reduced size.

yes.  and if we ever start to succeed again, the size will increase again.

---

From: Bruce Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:59:37 +0100 (CET)

> Party as an enterprise/org???

Are you sure that you can count the (large) number of subscribers that are
on the main IETF lists, and the umpteen WG lists, as participants?  There
seem to be a lot of people who are subscribed to various IETF-related
lists who do not seem to participate in the IETF discussions.

( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who participate in the
  IETF )

--==--
Bruce.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:09:12 -0800

Bruce -
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Campbell" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; "Christian Huitema"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

> on the main IETF lists, and the umpteen WG lists, as participants?

participants as far as meetings are concerned? no - obviously not, but this
pool of good email addresses constitute the core value of the IETF, that
being its Vettig Pool. So yes indeed, and also remember that the IETF is a
voluntary particpation standards process and platform, and that the reliable
email addresses for this "Vetting Pool" is what the core of the IETF's ideas
are vetted against. So put on your "organizational leader's" hat and then
ask me the same question -

> There

But the point is that they have the option. Its their choice as to whether
to participate of not.

> ( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who participate in the

I agree - so lets ask the question again, how many unique names are there in
the lists - what's the total 'verified email addresses' that make up the
total of the vetting pool? - 5000 - 10000 - 50000? what is it? Harald? -
this seems like a number that you as the Chair of the IETF would not only be
proud of, but would also have on the top of your head on a monthly basis...
Any ideas as to the number?

Todd

---

From: "bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:46:29 -0800

I disagree with your analysis todd.

The strength of the IETF is not in the number of unique e-mail address
on its e-mail lists (define unique - I have subscribed from probably 10
e-mail addresses over the years - many people I know are subscribed with
multiple "unique" addresses - many address in reality point to archiving
services, other reflectors, peoples inboxes that don't look at the
e-mail

So I don't think you can even count the number of unique e-mail
addresses - but if you could -

Peoples technical content/quality very widely, some input is worthless
(or close to it) and many just monitor what is going on... Other e-mail
is critical - either in technical content, providing an alternative
viewpoint etc.

The strength of the IETF is that it is a gathering point for all of
these people.  Not a quantity of e-mail addresses that can be spammed or
something else

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of todd
glassey
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 5:09 PM
To: Bruce Campbell
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Christian Huitema; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

Bruce -
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Campbell" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; "Christian
Huitema" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

> > What was the attendance of the last meeting then? and also what then

> > is
the
> > sum total of unique EMail Addresses in the Lists then too? I.e. what

> > is
the
> > total size of the Vetting Community Resource that the IETF brings to

> > the Party as an enterprise/org???
>
> Are you sure that you can count the (large) number of subscribers that

> are on the main IETF lists, and the umpteen WG lists, as participants?

participants as far as meetings are concerned? no - obviously not, but
this pool of good email addresses constitute the core value of the IETF,
that being its Vettig Pool. So yes indeed, and also remember that the
IETF is a voluntary particpation standards process and platform, and
that the reliable email addresses for this "Vetting Pool" is what the
core of the IETF's ideas are vetted against. So put on your
"organizational leader's" hat and then ask me the same question -

> lists who do not seem to participate in the IETF discussions.

But the point is that they have the option. Its their choice as to
whether to participate of not.

> ( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who participate in
the

I agree - so lets ask the question again, how many unique names are
there in the lists - what's the total 'verified email addresses' that
make up the total of the vetting pool? - 5000 - 10000 - 50000? what is
it? Harald? - this seems like a number that you as the Chair of the IETF
would not only be proud of, but would also have on the top of your head
on a monthly basis... Any ideas as to the number?

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:56:43 -0800

Bill - you are missing the picture. The ultimate number of bodies that the
IETF can count on are those unique email addresses. No one said they were
any particular Vetting Initiative but rather the total possible number of
"representative opinions" that any consensus could possibly count on -
assuming an "across the Organizational breadth" as the metric.

The IETF is supposed to be representative of the people of the world and
their representatives to the task of building Internet protocols, right? So
then the unique email addresses are a direct metric on how well the world is
represented. Wouldn't you say?

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bill" <[email-masked]>
To: "'todd glassey'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

> services, other reflectors, peoples inboxes that don't look at the

Thats a problem with the Registration Process then.

> is critical - either in technical content, providing an alternative

What has that to do with how many possible opinions are available herein?

> these people.

You mean the mailing lists right? - so count the members...

>  Not a quantity of e-mail addresses that can be spammed or
> something else

Bill -  you have not discounted or invalidated anything I have said here. My
comment stands.

---

From: "Ray Plzak" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:07:54 -0500

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Bruce Campbell
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 5:00 AM
> To: todd glassey
> Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Christian Huitema; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]

There are certainly more than 700 who attend.  I don't know if you can
characterize them as all participating.

Ray

---

From: "bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:46:29 -0800

Bill

-----Original Message-----

Bruce -
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Campbell" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; "Christian

the

the

Todd

---

From: "bill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:11:47 -0800

I would agree in as much as the metric for the productivity of a
programmer is KLOC.

I don't think you could define a unique e-mail in any sense of the word
- and even then, know the quality of the technical opinion behind that
e-mail address.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of todd
glassey
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:57 PM
To: bill
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

Bill - you are missing the picture. The ultimate number of bodies that
the IETF can count on are those unique email addresses. No one said they
were any particular Vetting Initiative but rather the total possible
number of "representative opinions" that any consensus could possibly
count on - assuming an "across the Organizational breadth" as the
metric.

The IETF is supposed to be representative of the people of the world and
their representatives to the task of building Internet protocols, right?
So then the unique email addresses are a direct metric on how well the
world is represented. Wouldn't you say?

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bill" <[email-masked]>
To: "'todd glassey'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

> on its e-mail lists (define unique - I have subscribed from probably 
> 10 e-mail addresses over the years - many people I know are subscribed

> with multiple "unique" addresses - many address in reality point to 
> archiving services, other reflectors, peoples inboxes that don't look 
> at the e-mail

> (or close to it) and many just monitor what is going on... Other 
> e-mail is critical - either in technical content, providing an 
> alternative viewpoint etc.

What has that to do with how many possible opinions are available
herein?

>  Not a quantity of e-mail addresses that can be spammed or something 
> else

Bill -  you have not discounted or invalidated anything I have said
here. My comment stands.

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> todd glassey

> this pool of good email addresses constitute the core value of the 
> IETF, that being its Vettig Pool. So yes indeed, and also remember 
> that the IETF is a voluntary particpation standards process and 
> platform, and that the reliable email addresses for this "Vetting 
> Pool" is what the core of the IETF's ideas are vetted against. So put 
> on your "organizational leader's" hat and then ask me the same 
> question -
>
> > There
> > seem to be a lot of people who are subscribed to various 
> > IETF-related lists who do not seem to participate in the IETF 
> > discussions.
>
> > ( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who participate 
> > in
> the
> >   IETF )
>

> it? Harald? - this seems like a number that you as the Chair of the 
> IETF would not only be proud of, but would also have on the top of 
> your head on a monthly basis... Any ideas as to the number?
>
> Todd
>
>
> >
> > --==--
> > Bruce.
>
>

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:56:43 -0800

Todd

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:23:30 -0500

> - and even then, know the quality of the technical opinion behind that

Amen.

We have kooks with one email address, we have kooks with lots of e-mail
addresses, we have very clued people with one address, and we have very clued
people with multiple addresses.

I'm pretty sure I'm one of the four, but not sure which.  I'm not sure how many
e-mail addresses I have, and I'm not even sure what metric to use for "number
of addresses" - due to some purely internal wonkyness in the way we do
business, the number of legitimate e-mail addresses that will result in mail
being dropped in my inbox is somewhere between two and three orders of
magnitude higher than the number of addresses I'm wont to emit from (at one
time it was almost 4 orders of magnitude, but I'm much better now, thank you).

As is standard IETF culture, you get to decide on the kook/clue yourself. ;)

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:53:36 -0800

Ray - the idea is that you don't need to - the purpose of the IETF as a
standards development platform is to provide the "opportunity for
participation" and not the "enforced mandatory participation" - after all
the IETF is not a slave march (or is it :-)

(Damn this is scary Harald - I am defending the IETF - what's wrong with
this picture?)...

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ray Plzak" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Bruce Campbell'" <[email-masked]>; "'todd glassey'"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <[email-masked]>; "'Christian
Huitema'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 2:07 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

---

From: mark seery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:16:21 -0800

Attendance/email registration matters from a number of logistical view 
points (conference setup. server resources, potential revenue stream,.....).

 From an actual work process point of view, it would seem the number of 
active work groups and the number of drafts and RFC proposals created 
impact WG and IESG workload the most. If you take the number of drafts / 
RFC proposals and then some how factor in the breadth and depth of the 
problem spaces they are addessing, then you have another view of the 
scaling problem. One particular aspect that interests me is even 
assuming the WG has the expertise to work a problem domain, what are the 
challenges to IESG members to keep pace with wideining and deepening 
problem domans - it would seem that at some point their feedback would 
become administrative; but perhaps they are all extremely talented 
people with the requisite spare time to keep up / or administrative 
feedback is all that is required?

Sometimes friction is caused by truly deeply divergent view points / 
experiences. Sometimes it is caused simply by a lack of bandwidth 
combined with a very low latency expectation / high quality expectation; 
and of course conversely sometimes the best is the enemy of the good.

FYI, anyone read all the drafts exploding our way in prep for the next 
meeting? (rhetorical of course) And if not, are there challenges to IETF 
members maintaining an end-to-end view point, or is it sufficient for 
people to simply specialize in a certain area without an 
evolving/debated architectural/mission framework in which to work?

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:07:42 -0800

Bill

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bill" <[email-masked]>
To: "'todd glassey'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

> - and even then, know the quality of the technical opinion behind that

The quality of the person behind the email address  is totally non-sequitor
to the question at hand. The QUALITY of the participants efforts are not
relevent to the question of whether the world at large was allowed to
participate. That is purely a QUANTITY ISSUE and not attached to the
competence or reasonability of any of the suggestions in the hopper.

- Todd

---

From: mark seery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:16:21 -0800

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:07:42 -0800

Bill

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bill" <[email-masked]>
To: "'todd glassey'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

- Todd