Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
How can anyone honestly expect research to appear in a group that was
created a matter of weeks before? What would anyone expect in the
circumstances but general talk about how bad spam is and a pep ralley
for the need to work on the problem?
The problem has been known for years. Methods of dealing with it
have been known for years. It's not naive for people to expect that
the meeting would start off with 30 seconds of "everyone knows spam is
bad... now let's start talking about what we might do"
At the risk of violating IETF canons, I must observe that some of
the strongest condemnations in the list of whatever happened at
the meeting came from people who have made the some of the less
well founded contributions to the mailing list. From here I can't
tell what happened, but I wonder if sour grape sentiments from some
people about their favorite solutions not being adopted by acclamation
colored other people's perceptions and so reports of the meeting.
The people I talked with who thought the meeting was unproductive
were not proposing the solutions. The people who were proposing
solutions were frustrated that they had little (or no) opportunity to
do so.
The vast majority of the meeting was an "intro to spam". It was
good for the reporters in the crowd, but less so for the technical
people.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg