[ALAC] At-Large mailing list activity reports

Fri Feb 6 12:52:34 UTC 2015

I believe stats and historic of participation is quite relevant in any
group. What we will do or not with these information is to do fine the
relevance of it for our group. However, for ICANN it will always have
relevance. 
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.

On 1/26/15, 4:32, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

>+1. I find them actually helpful and low traffic.
>
>Olivier
>
>On 26/01/2015 06:49, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
>> I too agree that these stats do no harm in my view.
>>
>> León
>>
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>
>>> El 25/01/2015, a las 22:42, Fatima Cambronero
>>><fatimacambronero at gmail.com> escribió:
>>>
>>> +1 Holly.
>>>
>>> Fatima
>>>
>>> 2015-01-26 1:40 GMT-03:00 Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>:
>>>
>>>> I personally have no difficulty with having these statistics
>>>>generated.
>>>>
>>>> Holly
>>>> On 26 Jan 2015, at 3:23 pm, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat has raised the issue of the At-Large mailing
>>>>>list
>>>> reports generated weekly by Thomas Narten. An example is follows:
>>>>>   Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
>>>>> --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
>>>>> 28.57% |    4 | 37.14% |    56728 | jjs at dyalog.net
>>>>> 21.43% |    3 | 22.75% |    34743 | jefsey at jefsey.com
>>>>> 14.29% |    2 | 10.51% |    16050 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at
>>>> gmail.com
>>>>> 7.14% |    1 | 11.72% |    17899 | mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
>>>>> 7.14% |    1 |  5.16% |     7874 | hilyard at oyster.net.ck
>>>>> 7.14% |    1 |  5.06% |     7731 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>>>>> 7.14% |    1 |  5.03% |     7687 | narten at us.ibm.com
>>>>> 7.14% |    1 |  2.63% |     4015 | at-large-bounces at
>>>> atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>> --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
>>>>> 100.00% |   14 |100.00% |   152727 | Total
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that Thomas produces similar reports for a number of
>>>>>other
>>>> mailing lists including the main ietf list (
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg91110.html).
>>>>> Jean-Jacques' questions along with my answers follow:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Was there a decision to task any particular individual/firm with
>>>> carrying out this statistical/nominative tracking? Was this decision
>>>>taken
>>>> in ALAC or elsewhere (date, reference)?
>>>>> AG: The tallies were requested by the ALAC Chair. The message
>>>> documenting this is part of our e-mail archive that is missing, but a
>>>>copy
>>>> of the message is attached.
>>>>> - Was this submitted to regular review and approval, or is there a
>>>> separate decision to grant this as a permanent authorization (date,
>>>> reference)?
>>>>> AG: Soon after the statistics started, they were questioned with the
>>>> perception that it violated peoples privacy. It was pointed out that
>>>>the
>>>> statistics were generated based on a public archive (which is also
>>>>indexed
>>>> by Google). I am not aware of any further concerns raised in the
>>>>ensuing
>>>> seven years.
>>>>> - If this is being used as a metrics tool, what is its qualitative
>>>> relevance? Has it been effectively used to "measure" the value of
>>>>this or
>>>> that member, say in ALAC? How were the criteria determined, and by
>>>>whom
>>>> (date, reference)?
>>>>> AG: I believe that the original request was made because of a person
>>>> regarded as a troll who was posting large numbers of messages. The
>>>> summaries have proven useful from time to time and all e-mail
>>>>programs have
>>>> the ability to filter them out for those who do not wish to see them.
>>>>> QUESTION TO THE ALAC: I see no harm in continuing to have these
>>>> statistics generated, and in fact, the Metrics WG has discussed doing
>>>> something similar for other lists as well. Are there any ALAC who
>>>>feel that
>>>> we need to either curtail this practice or discuss it further?
>>>>> Alan
>>>>> <At-Large list
>>>>>Stats.txt>_______________________________________________
>>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>>
>>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>>>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>>>> 
>>>>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee
>>>>+(ALAC)
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ALAC mailing list
>>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>>
>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>>>> 
>>>>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee
>>>>+(ALAC)
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> *Fatima Cambronero*
>>> Abogada-Argentina
>>>
>>> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
>>> Twitter: @facambronero
>>> Skype: fatima.cambronero
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ALAC mailing list
>>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>>
>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>>>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+
>>>(ALAC)
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(
>>ALAC)
>>
>
>-- 
>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki:
>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(A
>LAC)