Eric Gray> The discussion is essentially inane
I think this is an excellent observation. It suggests to me though that
perhaps the best way to get more funding for the IETF is to impose a
surcharge on inane messages to the ietf mailing list. The surcharge can be
based on the degree of inanity of the message.
I suggest the following schedule of charges:
- $10 for a generic message whining about US customs/immigration processes
- $10 for a clueless message suggesting a reorganization of the IETF or a
change of the fee structure (fortunately not to be imposed retroactively)
- $10 for a message about the value or lack thereof of Ascii art
- $10 for a message about the format of RFCs
- $15 for a message whining about US customs/immigration processes, if the
whine is backed up only by anecdotes
- $100 for a message suggesting that US customs/immigration processes are
unfair to white men from western europe. I'd raise the fee to $500 if
sent by someone with an obvious chip on his shoulder.
- $100 for a message suggesting that IETF meetings be held in peculiar
- $100 for a message suggesting that the cookies at IETF meetings should be
- $100 for a message stating that the list is full of inane messages (not to
be imposed retroactively)
- $200 for a message saying that NAT is evil
- $200 for a message whining about the IETF's lack of sufficient emphasis
- $500 for a message whining about the fact that IETF meetings do not
routinely occur in one's home town. I would raise the fee to $1,000 if
Barcelona is mentioned.
- $500 for a message saying that the job of the IETF is to prevent the
marketplace from making technology choices
- $1000 for a message stating that the poster knows how to solve the spam
problem once and for all.
Of course, this is not an exhaustive list of inane categories of message,
it's just a start.
If, during the course of a week, a single poster sends multiple inane
messages which say exactly the same thing, I would double the fee for each
Putting such a schedule of charges into place would either eliminate the
IETF's budget problems or else make its mailing list a lot more useful.
Ietf mailing list