Subject: draft-hartmans-mailinglist-experiment

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:46:00 +0000

I think Sams proposed experiment is a very good idea.  I do have some thoughts, but my support doesn't hinge on their incorporation and I'm in favor of the draft either way.
In my opinion these should be experiments of process rather than penalty.  I feel like since the severity of a ban legnth is subjective and since different cases will warrant different legnths we might do better (i.e. have less things to disagree on) if all experiments assumed the same ban legnth.  I was also thnking that if everyone agreed this was a process experiment then I'd like to suggest that all experiments be mock in the sense that the decisions are not actually carried out.  I think doing it that way would give us greater freedom to experiment.  Also I figure anyone banned by an experimental process is going to make a lot of noise in the appeals process and we might start to annoy our counterparts who have to hear them?
These are just my thoughts and I'm not tied to any of them so you risk no argument by disagreeing.
nick

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

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:54:33 -0600

A pointer to "Sam's proposed experiment" is http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-00.txt, announced on Tuesday of this week.

Thanks,

Spencer
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: [email-masked] 
  To: [email-masked] ; [email-masked] 
  Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:46 AM
  Subject: draft-hartmans-mailinglist-experiment

  nick

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:38:10 -0500

So, if we don't actually carry out the ban, how do we see whether the
ban is successful in meeting the experimental goal of improving
productivity?

---

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:42:47 -0500

On Jan 26, 2006, at 9:46, [email-masked] wrote:
>   Also I figure anyone banned by an experimental process is going  
> to make a lot of noise in the appeals process and we might start to  
> annoy our counterparts who have to hear them?

Isn't the (seemingly) requisite appeal following any action of this  
sort just part of the experiment?  And if we just use mock bans as  
you suggest, then of course they should be followed up with mock  
appeals, which the IESG or IAB pretend to listen to and make  
decisions about.  We could even pretend to have endless discussions  
without conclusions on various mailing lists.

> risk no argument by disagreeing.

These aren't even my thoughts. :-)

Ken