Subject: Re: draft discussion lists

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:28:31 +0300

Hi Mike,

On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 01:58:53PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Part of the above is a desire to segment the conversations a bit more than we're currently doing so as to reduce the noise level.

I actually don't think more segmentation will help.  First, my
experience is that the "noise" is not primarily because of drafts I
don't care about, but because of people who can't control their
logohhrea and who feel that "rough consensus" is approximately the
same thing as "I have shouted down everyone who disagrees with me."
(Indeed, in my experience, the number of noisy transmitters is really
quite small.  You probably have your own list.)

Second, I think that the IETF is already precariously over-segmented.
Way too little cross-review is happening, and the consequence is not
just that insights from people who might have something useful to say
is missed., We also fail to re-use techniques, and instead discover
the same problems over and over again.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:18:15 -0400

--On Tuesday, 02 September, 2014 10:28 +0300 Andrew Sullivan
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> experience is that the "noise" is not primarily because of
> drafts I don't care about, but because of people who can't
> control their logohhrea and who feel that "rough consensus" is
> approximately the same thing as "I have shouted down everyone
> who disagrees with me."  (Indeed, in my experience, the number
> of noisy transmitters is really quite small.  You probably 
> have your own list.)
 
> Second, I think that the IETF is already precariously
> over-segmented. Way too little cross-review is happening, and
> the consequence is not just that insights from people who
> might have something useful to say is missed. 
>...

+1

I would add that, if one were looking for effective solutions to
the noise, it think they would lie, not in one mailing list per
document (which, as Andrew says, would mostly promote more
fragmentation or less cross-review) but a rule that a given
person could post once on a given document or topic, follow up
once, but they was either required to shut up or do the work to
create a discussion charter for a new list or WG with the
threshold for the former slightly higher than is today... or at
least to wait a full week before a third message.  More that two
postings on a topic would be considered antisocial (at least).
I've certainly been guilty of too many messages in attempts to
clarify, but would probably benefit from fewer,
better-considered messages, which such a rule would encourage.

   john