[TLS] Re: Improving the quality of the discussion on the TLS email list
Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:12:23 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tls |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============5803405347144839761== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A5611229-76D6-4A6E-BB79-7935409F3C5F" --Apple-Mail=_A5611229-76D6-4A6E-BB79-7935409F3C5F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Filippo, You write: > Excellent, sounds like you land at the same result as the chairs when = tallying support by all participants. That=E2=80=99s promising! Please take care not to misrepresent Tanja=E2=80=99s position. Tanja=E2=80= =99s opening sentence in her email was: > I can tally the emails on list, which were about even in favor and = against. Tanja=E2=80=99s assessment, when taking into consideration all = participants, appears to have been something close to a 50/50 split. The chairs=E2=80=99 assessment, when taking into consideration all = participants [1], is different: > By pure numbers, more people want to progress the document than not, The chairs do not go into more detail than this, and =E2=80=9Cmore = people want to progress the document than not=E2=80=9D could mean = anything from a 51/49 split in favor of adoption to a 70/30 split or = maybe more. It=E2=80=99s imprecise. Tanja=E2=80=99s assessment is more precise and implies something closer = to a 50/50 split. You=E2=80=99ve made a good deal of noise correcting people when they = call women participants on this list =E2=80=9CMs. X=E2=80=9D instead of = =E2=80=9CDr. X=E2=80=9D [2] =E2=80=94 I would advise you, if you truly = want to make a difference in the enfranchisement of different voices on = this list, to take care not to misrepresent their contributions. I = suspect that would make a much bigger difference than haughtily = correcting the usage of honorifics. [1] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/tPe7m_vpmDco43588yVW3JWrb8U/ [2] = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/jLmKnwk-nSTEJr8oT_H6YQ__da8/=20= Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software =E2=80=A2 https://symbolic.software > On 31 Jul 2026, at 10:35=E2=80=AFAM, Filippo Valsorda = <[email protected]> wrote: >=20 > Excellent, sounds like you land at the same result as the chairs when = tallying support by all participants. That=E2=80=99s promising! >=20 > Then, have you tried tallying support by =E2=80=9Cpre-existing WG = participants 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > If you do come to a significantly different result, you can share your = methodology in your appeal, and let the ADs, IESG, or IAB assess it. >=20 > 2026-07-31 15:55 GMT+02:00 Tanja Lange <[email protected] = <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> Dear Eliot, dear all, >> I can tally the emails on list, which were about even in favor and = against. >> The chairs announced that by some process of discarding or weighing = some 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] <mailto:[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 = when doing >> my homework. >>=20 >> Finally, there are reports of messages not appearing on list despite = the >> sender responding with the release code. We have seen some messages = containing >> release codes appear on list (I hadn't seen that in any previous = discussion). >> 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 = the 70 % claim ("7/10 WG participants favor advancing the document" = [3]). >> >=20 >> > Unnecessary. All the information used by the chairs is publicly = available 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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] = <mailto:[email protected]> >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] = <mailto:[email protected]> >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] --Apple-Mail=_A5611229-76D6-4A6E-BB79-7935409F3C5F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <html aria-label=3D"message body"><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" = content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body = style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; = line-break: after-white-space;">Hi Filippo,<div><br></div><div>You = write:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type=3D"cite">Excellent, = sounds like you land at the same result as the chairs when tallying = support by all participants. That=E2=80=99s = promising!</blockquote><div><br></div>Please take care not to = misrepresent Tanja=E2=80=99s position. Tanja=E2=80=99s opening sentence = in her email was:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type=3D"cite">I = can tally the emails on list, which were about even in favor and = against.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>Tanja=E2=80=99s assessment, when = taking into consideration all participants, appears to have been = something close to a 50/50 split.</div><div>The chairs=E2=80=99 = assessment, when taking into consideration all participants [1], is = different:</div><div><br></div><div><div><blockquote type=3D"cite">By = pure numbers, more people want to progress the document than = not,</blockquote></div></div><div><br></div><div>The chairs do not go = into more detail than this, and =E2=80=9Cmore people want to progress = the document than not=E2=80=9D could mean anything from a 51/49 split in = favor of adoption to a 70/30 split or maybe more. It=E2=80=99s = imprecise.</div><div><br></div><div>Tanja=E2=80=99s assessment is more = precise and implies something closer to a 50/50 = split.</div><div><br></div><div>You=E2=80=99ve made a good deal of noise = correcting people when they call women participants on this list =E2=80=9C= Ms. X=E2=80=9D instead of =E2=80=9CDr. X=E2=80=9D [2] =E2=80=94 I would = advise you, if you truly want to make a difference in the = enfranchisement of different voices on this list, to take care not to = misrepresent their contributions. I suspect that would make a much = bigger difference than haughtily correcting the usage of = honorifics.</div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a = href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/tPe7m_vpmDco43588yVW3JWr= b8U/">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/tPe7m_vpmDco43588yVW3JWrb8= U/</a></div><div>[2] <a = href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/jLmKnwk-nSTEJr8oT_H6YQ__= da8/">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/jLmKnwk-nSTEJr8oT_H6YQ__da= 8/</a> <br><div> <meta charset=3D"UTF-8"><br>Nadim Kobeissi<br>Symbolic Software = =E2=80=A2 https://symbolic.software<br> </div> <div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On 31 Jul 2026, at 10:35=E2=80=AFA= M, Filippo Valsorda <[email protected]> wrote:</div><br = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div><title></title><div><div>Excellen= t, sounds like you land at the same result as the chairs when tallying = support by all participants. That=E2=80=99s = promising!</div><div><br></div><div>Then, have you tried tallying = support by =E2=80=9Cpre-existing WG participants 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=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.</div><div><br></div><div>If you do = come to a significantly different result, you can share your methodology = 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><blockquote 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 against.</div><div>The chairs announced that by some process = of discarding or weighing some votes</div><div>they reach 70% in favor. = To quote this verbatim </div><div>"However, if we look at = pre-existing = WG = </= div><div>participants or people with demonstrated expertise, roughly = 7/10 = WG = </div><d= iv>participants favor advancing the document, which shows rough = consensus  = ; </div><div>to = move the document forward."</div><div>The requests I've seen, starting = right after the chairs announced their</div><div>decision that there was = consensus in favor of the document, are asking for</div><div>which input = was discarded or counted higher or lower. I cannot do = the</div><div>"homework" of checking this because I don't know the = mechanism used. </div><div><br></div><div>Additionally, the email = asking for responses was sent with</div><div>Reply-To: Joseph Salowey = <<a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[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 when doing</div><div>my = homework.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, there are reports of = messages not appearing on list despite the</div><div>sender responding = with the release code. We have seen some messages = containing</div><div>release codes appear on list (I hadn't seen that in = any previous discussion).</div><div>My understanding is that the chairs = see those, 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</div><div>(quoted above) was = reached.</div><div><br></div><div>All the = best</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 requests [1, 2] that the working group chairs release = the participant chart/list/table publicly that supports the 70 % claim = ("7/10 WG participants favor advancing the document" = [3]).</div><div>> </div><div>> Unnecessary. All the = information used by the chairs is publicly available on</div><div>> = this list. Do your own homework. Stop 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><di= v>> _______________________________________________</div><div>> = TLS mailing list -- <a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></div><div>> To = unsubscribe send an email to <a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></div><div><br></= div><div>_______________________________________________</div><div>TLS = mailing list -- <a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></div><div>To unsubscribe = send an email to <a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></div><div><br></= div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>____________________________________= ___________<br>TLS mailing list -- [email protected]<br>To unsubscribe send = an email to = [email protected]<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail=_A5611229-76D6-4A6E-BB79-7935409F3C5F-- --===============5803405347144839761== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KVExTIG1haWxp bmcgbGlzdCAtLSB0bHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcKVG8gdW5zdWJzY3JpYmUgc2VuZCBhbiBlbWFpbCB0byB0 bHMtbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK --===============5803405347144839761==--