[ALAC] At-Large mailing list activity reports

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Mon Jan 26 04:40:48 UTC 2015


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)



More information about the ALAC mailing list