[ALAC] At-Large mailing list activity reports

[Fatima Cambronero]

+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