[TLS] Re: Improving the quality of the discussion on the TLS email list
"Filippo Valsorda" <[email protected]> Fri, 31 Jul 2026 16:35:38 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tls |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============3048470825052510733== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e31690c23626001ee1e2ca612c6923c2b1e75eba --e31690c23626001ee1e2ca612c6923c2b1e75eba Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Excellent, sounds like you land at the same result as the chairs when ta= llying support by all participants. That=E2=80=99s promising! Then, have you tried tallying support by =E2=80=9Cpre-existing WG partic= ipants or people with demonstrated expertise=E2=80=9D using your own met= hodology? Did you land at a result significantly different from =E2=80=9C= roughly 7/10=E2=80=9D? Assuming you=E2=80=99re not looking a priori for something to object to,= if you come to the same conclusion using your own methodology, I don=E2= =80=99t see what good demanding an itemized list would do. If you do come to a significantly different result, you can share your m= ethodology in your appeal, and let the ADs, IESG, or IAB assess it. 2026-07-31 15:55 GMT+02:00 Tanja Lange <[email protected]>: > Dear Eliot, dear all, > I can tally the emails on list, which were about even in favor and aga= inst. > The chairs announced that by some process of discarding or weighing so= me votes > they reach 70% in favor. To quote this verbatim=20 > "However, if we look at pre-existing WG =20 > participants or people with demonstrated expertise, roughly 7/10 WG = =20 > participants favor advancing the document, which shows rough consensus= =20 > to move the document forward." > The requests I've seen, starting right after the chairs announced their > decision that there was consensus in favor of the document, are asking= for > which input was discarded or counted higher or lower. I cannot do the > "homework" of checking this because I don't know the mechanism used.=20 >=20 > Additionally, the email asking for responses was sent with > Reply-To: Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> > so that replies would go to Joe's address and to the list only if the = sender > chooses to reply to all (or edits the header manually), so there might= be some > emails that didn't go to the list and which therefore I cannot count w= hen doing > my homework. >=20 > Finally, there are reports of messages not appearing on list despite t= he > sender responding with the release code. We have seen some messages co= ntaining > release codes appear on list (I hadn't seen that in any previous discu= ssion). > My understanding is that the chairs see those, and maybe that's where = the > chairs saw additional support, but I cannot count these in my homework. >=20 > Hence, I would like to support the request for transparency of how the= 7/10 > (quoted above) was reached. >=20 > All the best > Tanja >=20 > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 01:02:26PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > > Hi, > >=20 > > On 31.07.2026 12:37, Ken Kubota wrote: > >=20 > > There have been repeated requests [1, 2] that the working group = chairs release the participant chart/list/table publicly that supports t= he 70 % claim ("7/10 WG participants favor advancing the document" [3]). > >=20 > > Unnecessary. All the information used by the chairs is publicly ava= ilable on > > this list. Do your own homework. Stop making work for others. > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >=20 > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >=20 --e31690c23626001ee1e2ca612c6923c2b1e75eba Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title></head><body><div>Excellent, s= ounds like you land at the same result as the chairs when tallying suppo= rt by all participants. That=E2=80=99s promising!</div><div><br></div><d= iv>Then, have you tried tallying support by =E2=80=9Cpre-existing WG par= ticipants or people with demonstrated expertise=E2=80=9D using your own = methodology? Did you land at a result significantly different from =E2=80= =9Croughly 7/10=E2=80=9D?</div><div><br></div><div>Assuming you=E2=80=99= re not looking a priori for something to object to, if you come to the s= ame conclusion using your own methodology, I don=E2=80=99t see what good= demanding an itemized list would do.</div><div><br></div><div>If you do= come to a significantly different result, you can share your methodolog= y in your appeal, and let the ADs, IESG, or IAB assess it.</div><div><br= ></div><div>2026-07-31 15:55 GMT+02:00 Tanja Lange <<a href=3D"mailto= :[email protected]">[email protected]</a>>:</div><blockqu= ote type=3D"cite" id=3D"qt" style=3D""><div>Dear Eliot, dear all,</div><= div>I can tally the emails on list, which were about even in favor and a= gainst.</div><div>The chairs announced that by some process of discardin= g or weighing some votes</div><div>they reach 70% in favor. To quote thi= s verbatim </div><div>"However, if we look at pre-existing WG = = </div>= <div>participants or people with demonstrated expertise, roughly 7/10 WG= = </div>= <div>participants favor advancing the document, which shows rough consen= sus &nb= sp; </div><div>to move th= e document forward."</div><div>The requests I've seen, starting right af= ter the chairs announced their</div><div>decision that there was consens= us in favor of the document, are asking for</div><div>which input was di= scarded or counted higher or lower. I cannot do the</div><div>"homework"= of checking this because I don't know the mechanism used. </div><d= iv><br></div><div>Additionally, the email asking for responses was sent = with</div><div>Reply-To: Joseph Salowey <<a href=3D"mailto:joe@salowe= y.net">[email protected]</a>></div><div>so that replies would go to Joe= 's address and to the list only if the sender</div><div>chooses to reply= to all (or edits the header manually), so there might be some</div><div= >emails that didn't go to the list and which therefore I cannot count wh= en doing</div><div>my homework.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, there = are reports of messages not appearing on list despite the</div><div>send= er responding with the release code. We have seen some messages containi= ng</div><div>release codes appear on list (I hadn't seen that in any pre= vious discussion).</div><div>My understanding is that the chairs see tho= se, and maybe that's where the</div><div>chairs saw additional support, = but I cannot count these in my homework.</div><div><br></div><div>Hence,= I would like to support the request for transparency of how the 7/10</d= iv><div>(quoted above) was reached.</div><div><br></div><div>All the bes= t</div><div>Tanja</div><div><br></div><div>On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 01:02= :26PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:</div><div>> Hi,</div><div>> </= div><div>> On 31.07.2026 12:37, Ken Kubota wrote:</div><div>> = ;</div><div>> There have been repeated reques= ts [1, 2] that the working group chairs release the participant chart/li= st/table publicly that supports the 70 % claim ("7/10 WG participants fa= vor advancing the document" [3]).</div><div>> </div><div>> Un= necessary. All the information used by the chairs is publicly avai= lable on</div><div>> this list. Do your own homework. Sto= p making work for others.</div><div>> </div><div>> </div= ><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></= div><div><br></div><div>> ___________________________________________= ____</div><div>> TLS mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:tls@ietf.= org">[email protected]</a></div><div>> To unsubscribe send an email to&nbs= p;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></div><div= ><br></div><div>_______________________________________________</div><di= v>TLS mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]<= /a></div><div>To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:tls= [email protected]">[email protected]</a></div><div><br></div></blockquote= ><div><br></div></body></html> --e31690c23626001ee1e2ca612c6923c2b1e75eba-- --===============3048470825052510733== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KVExTIG1haWxp bmcgbGlzdCAtLSB0bHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcKVG8gdW5zdWJzY3JpYmUgc2VuZCBhbiBlbWFpbCB0byB0 bHMtbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK --===============3048470825052510733==--