Dear David,
This could be done in extracting archives and in building a statistic
program. Then it could be given to some good mathematician to find
correlations. The utilisation of as much IETF mailing lists as
possible over the last 10 years could permit to discover some
personal behavioral pattern. The real issue is that a mailing list is
polylogue and is something we have to learn about. For example we all
know that one single mail may trigger hundredth of posts. The problem
is not to impeach the fight, but the match use to start it.
jfc
At 03:17 27/01/2006, HarringtonDavid 73653 wrote:
Some of the analysisI think should be done:
1) is there a correlation between the posting patterns and the
timely completion of milestones in a WG?
if the Charter is considered by the WG or not.
if the final report to the IESG states that the Charter was fulfilled.
if the authors of the I-D are or not preselected before the creation of the WG?
2) is there a correlation between posting patterns and the time
between first publication of an I-D and its subsequent adoption by the WG?
the delay between the start of a WG and the publication of the I-D.
The number of proposed changes to the I-D. Ratio of considered,
denied, adopted changes. Number of mails per results (global, per individual).
Number of never answered relevant questions.
3) is there a correlation between posting patterns and the time
between adoption of an I-D by the WG and the publication as a
Proposed Standard?
This is a certain number of periods which should be detailed.
4) Are there specific points in the provess when the posting pattern
behaviors change? (such as after PS apporoval but before RFC
publication, or during WGLC, or immediately after and updated I-D is
posted?, etc.
I am not sure all that correspond to a real debate? Also it does not
take into consideration external aspects, appeals, etc.
5) in the subjective view of the chairs **of many WGs, not just ones
that had problem posters**, did posting behaviors help or hurt the
forward progress of the WG?
Yes. But the problem is to assess if help/hurt. I would propose a
simpler criteria - for each I-D Change, the delay since the
proposition started. The last change. The pattern after the last
change. The last change date vs. transmission to IESG.
6) maybe a survey should be done for all WG participants to get
their subjective view of whether posting behaviors helped or hurt WG process
This is subjective. The best criteria is the difference between the
first and last I-D and the way the changes came in (as a proposition
or to block a proposition. Was that proposition to eventually get the
resulting change).
The real issue I think is the consensus by exhaustion. This should be
traced through the participation pattern and the number of mails to
approve/disapprove a point the Chair deem consensual and the number
of average participants at that time.
Another important point is the number of participants, silent or
active during the life of the WG.
I would be willing to help design and document a data collection
experiment to contribute to a better understanding of the factors
that impact the effectiveness of IETF processes.
I would suggest a simple thing: to take a few typical mailing lists
the Chairs would release the number of registered participants (at
which date), to download them as a file, and to build a tool to
extact statistics. From previous work in that area for @large list,
the size of the mails vs. the size of someone input in the mail is an
important factor, as well as the mail being trimed or not.
I am interested too in working on that.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf