[ALAC] At-Large mailing list activity reports
eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com
Mon Jan 26 18:21:27 UTC 2015
I read them from time to time. Those that do not care to receive them can
easily filter them out with their respective email readers.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> 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
> 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
> 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-
> 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,
> 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?
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
More information about the ALAC