Subject: RE: Status of MARID WG?

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:29:04 -0800

> > All you need is two interoperable implementations and a userbase 
> > noticable to the IETF. The fact that 98% of the users of 
> the internet 
> > will never use it directly or indirectly does not matter.
> 
> The "userbase noticable" isn't requirement of the RFC 
> process. The IETF 
> doesn't standardize based on popularity, but on consensus.

Consensus amongst a community that is 100% atypical of the Internet users.

Each time I vist the IETF the proportion of members who are unashamed
technologist supremacists rises. There is no embarassment about developing
systems that ordinary users cannot make use of.

> > Nobody in the IETF is elected, nobody is accountable. The 
> inevitable 
> > consequence of that situation is that nothing that the IETF 
> does can 
> > ever rise above the level of a personal opinion.
> 
> This is also not true.  It may appear this way from time to 
> time, but it isn't literally true.

It is literaly true that nobody is elected. All appointments are through a
selection committee that is explicitly non-representative and
non-accountable.

> Indeed, the Microsoft presentation given at the Anti-spam 
> conference at MIT demonstrated that.  The MSN people noted 
> that their biggest complaints came from other divisions of 
> Microsoft whose spam they blocked (and that was unblocked). 
> And while they weren't sharing their techniques (better to 
> exploit them that way), what little they did reveal made me 
> think they were using bayesian technique, though I think they 
> specifically denied using spam-bayes. I thought it odd for 
> them to come to a technical conference, give a presentation, 
> and not actually share any technical information.

The best presentation at the MIT conference was by the MIT undergrad who was
the only person there who gave a rundown of the comparative effectiveness of
bayesian inference vs other techniques and found the other techniques worked
better.

I would be surprised if Microsoft did use Bayesian inference, they are not
the best tool for their corpus by a very long way. In the presentation I
heard the presenter said that they used a huge number of rules and
constantly re-evaluated both the ones that were most effective and the ways
in which relative weights were combined.

> These same people saying spam-bayes is pure evil (eg 
> Vixie) have made statements to the effect that anything that 
> helps reduce spam is good.  Except spam-bayes. They say 
> that's bad. Not just a little bad. But terribly, horribly, 
> drastically bad.

Oh I can think of ways in which Spam-bayes might be bad for Paul Vixie...

> I've done some work applying information theory to spam, and 
> have discovered that there is no ultimate solution to spam. 

Now there is an interesting statement. Whayt if the solution does not exist
in information theory?

> But 
> there is a nomination process for the IETF chairman, and 
> members of the IAB.  The IETF is also an activity of ICANN, 

No it isn't.

And no, a nomination process does not an accountability mechanism make.

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:48:03 -0500 (EST)

> Consensus amongst a community that is 100% atypical of the Internet users.

Sure, the consensus among network engineers and scientists. Sure they
aren't typical of internet users.  Phone engineers are atypical of phone
users.  Auto engineers are atypical of auto drivers, too. But who do you
want making decisions at the Department of Transportation or running the
engineering department at a car company?  Some guy who really loves his
Mini Cooper, and thinks dump trucks and other cars should be banned, and
argues that since most people don't need dump trucks, that they should be
banned?  Does being a car driver (or passenger) qualify one for a
decision-making role in transportation? Of course not.

I'm not so concerned about the selection of decision makers and leaders
from the technical community, so much as I'm concerned about whether the
decision makers selected actually represent the technical community,
rather than a certain small group in the community. It always seems that
some are not held to obey the rules, and that some seem to view the IETF 
as a private club.

> systems that ordinary users cannot make use of.

Technology is sometimes obscure. New technology is sometimes even more
obscure. Most people can't make use of SS7, either. But you wouldn't be
making as many phone calls without it.  

> > > Nobody in the IETF is elected, nobody is accountable. The inevitable
> > > consequence of that situation is that nothing that the IETF does can

The process is somewhat opaque alright.  And it resembles more of a
private club than an public service organ or NGO or standards body.  But
nominations imply elections however informal or exclusive the consensus
is.  The process could be much better, and more open, and otherwise
greately improved--absolutely,I'm on board that wagontrain. But its an
exaggeration to say that there is no democratic process whatsoever. 

There is a fundamental concept of democracy and consensus to the IETF.
Its just insufficient and flawed.  Most standards organizations have a
membership concept, and /all/ members get to vote on certain things.

> in which relative weights were combined.

Right. "Combining relative weights" sounds very much like Bayes rule.

> > But there is a nomination process for the IETF chairman, and members
> > of the IAB.  The IETF is also an activity of ICANN,
> 
> No it isn't.

I mis-spoke, my apologies. The IETF is an activity of ISOC, which has
incorporation, rules, elections and bylaws.  http://www.isoc.org/isoc/

> And no, a nomination process does not an accountability mechanism make.

It is a matter of degree.  But I agree that it is insufficient.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000