Subject: Re: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

From: kent crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:13:42 -0800

On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:20:15PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> 
> Eventually you end up with multiple groups on a list: those who
> irritate others, those who want to censor the ones they find
> irritating, and--sometimes--a minority of people who are grown-up
> enough to stay out of both of these groups and continue their normal
> work, cheerfully ignoring the children at play on the list.
>
> > When this happens, I've only ever seen two possible outcomes.  Either
> > the smoke generators are ejected, or the productive members leave.
> 
> There's a third possible outcome: The productive members are smart,
> they ignore the smoke, and they continue to work efficiently. 

A fundamental aspect of group decision making is defining the group making
the decision.  Uncoordinated individual procmail rulesets don't cut it if
there is any kind of accountability requirement. 

IETF lists are frequently required to make group decisions, and those
decisions do have an accountability requirement.  Decisions have to stand on the
public record, not the filtered view of some hypothetical elite.  When an IESG
member examines the archive of a list to review some decision, that review
won't tell the IESG member who is filtering who.  

I've been on lists where I thought there was limited and mostly intelligent
traffic, until I looked at the archive. 

> But the
> productive members do have to be _smart_, and unfortunately that's
> more the exception than the rule, even on lists where the members like
> to believe themselves smart.

Would that things were so simple.

-- 
Kent Crispin 
[email-masked]    p: +1 310 823 9358  f: +1 310 823 8649
[email-masked] SIP: [email-masked]

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:46:22 -0800

> there is any kind of accountability requirement. 

The view that individual rulesets provide sufficient controls against 
distracting or disruptive participants ignores some fundamentals of group 
dynamics.  In effect, it holds that there is no cost in having each participant 
decide who is to be filtered.  In fact, the cost is quite high. When a 
participant must spend significant time filtering noise from content on a list, 
it becomes easier to leave the list.

IETF lists are supposed to follow work agendas.  Like any work group, they need 
to be given the management oversight that is typical for performing that work. 
This means asserting current topics, ensuring the topics are the focus of 
discussion, and bringing unruly or distracting participants under control.

More typically, IETF groups have little or none of this oversight, so it is no 
surprise that we find ourselves frequently debating irrelevancies.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>