Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "bill" <bill(_at_)strahm(_dot_)net>
To: "'todd glassey'" <todd(_dot_)glassey(_at_)worldnet(_dot_)att(_dot_)net>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers
I would agree in as much as the metric for the productivity of a
programmer is KLOC.
I don't think you could define a unique e-mail in any sense of the word
- and even then, know the quality of the technical opinion behind that
e-mail address.
The quality of the person behind the email address is totally non-sequitor
to the question at hand. The QUALITY of the participants efforts are not
relevent to the question of whether the world at large was allowed to
participate. That is purely a QUANTITY ISSUE and not attached to the
competence or reasonability of any of the suggestions in the hopper.
- Todd
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On Behalf Of todd
glassey
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:57 PM
To: bill
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers
Bill - you are missing the picture. The ultimate number of bodies that
the IETF can count on are those unique email addresses. No one said they
were any particular Vetting Initiative but rather the total possible
number of "representative opinions" that any consensus could possibly
count on - assuming an "across the Organizational breadth" as the
metric.
The IETF is supposed to be representative of the people of the world and
their representatives to the task of building Internet protocols, right?
So then the unique email addresses are a direct metric on how well the
world is represented. Wouldn't you say?
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "bill" <bill(_at_)strahm(_dot_)net>
To: "'todd glassey'" <todd(_dot_)glassey(_at_)worldnet(_dot_)att(_dot_)net>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers
I disagree with your analysis todd.
The strength of the IETF is not in the number of unique e-mail address
on its e-mail lists (define unique - I have subscribed from probably
10 e-mail addresses over the years - many people I know are subscribed
with multiple "unique" addresses - many address in reality point to
archiving services, other reflectors, peoples inboxes that don't look
at the e-mail
Thats a problem with the Registration Process then.
So I don't think you can even count the number of unique e-mail
addresses - but if you could -
Peoples technical content/quality very widely, some input is worthless
(or close to it) and many just monitor what is going on... Other
e-mail is critical - either in technical content, providing an
alternative viewpoint etc.
What has that to do with how many possible opinions are available
herein?
The strength of the IETF is that it is a gathering point for all of
these people.
You mean the mailing lists right? - so count the members...
Not a quantity of e-mail addresses that can be spammed or something
else
Bill - you have not discounted or invalidated anything I have said
here. My comment stands.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
todd glassey
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 5:09 PM
To: Bruce Campbell
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Christian Huitema; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
problem-statement(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers
Bruce -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Campbell" <bruce(_dot_)campbell(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net>
To: "todd glassey" <todd(_dot_)glassey(_at_)worldnet(_dot_)att(_dot_)net>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>; "Christian
Huitema" <huitema(_at_)windows(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<problem-statement(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, todd glassey wrote:
What was the attendance of the last meeting then? and also what
then
is
the
sum total of unique EMail Addresses in the Lists then too? I.e.
what
is
the
total size of the Vetting Community Resource that the IETF brings
to
the Party as an enterprise/org???
Are you sure that you can count the (large) number of subscribers
that
are on the main IETF lists, and the umpteen WG lists, as
participants?
participants as far as meetings are concerned? no - obviously not, but
this pool of good email addresses constitute the core value of the
IETF, that being its Vettig Pool. So yes indeed, and also remember
that the IETF is a voluntary particpation standards process and
platform, and that the reliable email addresses for this "Vetting
Pool" is what the core of the IETF's ideas are vetted against. So put
on your "organizational leader's" hat and then ask me the same
question -
There
seem to be a lot of people who are subscribed to various
IETF-related lists who do not seem to participate in the IETF
discussions.
But the point is that they have the option. Its their choice as to
whether to participate of not.
( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who participate
in
the
IETF )
I agree - so lets ask the question again, how many unique names are
there in the lists - what's the total 'verified email addresses' that
make up the total of the vetting pool? - 5000 - 10000 - 50000? what is
it? Harald? - this seems like a number that you as the Chair of the
IETF would not only be proud of, but would also have on the top of
your head on a monthly basis... Any ideas as to the number?
Todd
--==--
Bruce.