Re: Fwd: FYI: Site Local

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <kj3ckyuxkj.fsf@romeo.rtfm.com>, Eric Rescorla writes:
>Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> writes:
>> > We have two samples, both taken with seriously non-random sampling
>> > methodologies. There's an extensive literature about how to combine
>> > such studies (the procedure is called meta-analysis) but simple
>> > addition can't be used unless the two samples were taken with roughly
>> > commensurate methodologies.
>> 
>> 
>> So what constructive suggestion do you have for handling the problem
>> on the table, namely:
>> 
>> - complex topic, with folks on both sides having strong views
>> - clear consensus in room
>> - IETF mantra that consensus is defined by the mailing list, not the
>>   room
>> - chairs (and ADs) that really do want to make the process work in an
>>   open matter.
>> - don't want the  ML to melt with 1K postings per day (to prevent the
>>   DOS on the ML problem)
>
>Right. Well, if we take seriously the claim that the consensus is
>defined by the ML, then we ought to discard the room count entirely.
>Now, the question just becomes how to execute the sample on
>the mailing list. I'm not concerned with having debate on the mailing
>list actually DoS the list, so the issue just becomes how to
>take votes. The obvious solution to that is to have some
>separate automated system that collects those votes and just post
>the call for votes on the ML.

The problem is getting people to participate.  Rob and I are trying to 
run a mailing list hum on the IPR list; it's been hard to get people to 
respond, even people who have been active participants.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)