Subject: The Next Generation

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:35:18 -0700

Hi,

I noticed there were some parts of the last IETF meeting (105) that were
sparsely attended. And, the attendees of those meetings tended to be white,
mostly male, and at least middle-aged. There's nothing wrong with that: no
one chooses their age, gender, or skin color.

Although there is value in experience, maybe the IETF should work to hand
off some duties to more diverse younger people.

As a start, I propose identifying some current groups that could be
better-handled by younger and more diverse people. The one I have in mind
is CAPPORT, but I'm not tied to it.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 17:41:15 -0700

On 9/3/19 5:35 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed there were some parts of the last IETF meeting (105) that 
> were sparsely attended. And, the attendees of those meetings tended to 
> be white, mostly male, and at least middle-aged. There's nothing wrong 
> with that: no one chooses their age, gender, or skin color.
>
> Although there is value in experience, maybe the IETF should work to 
> hand off some duties to more diverse younger people.
>
> better-handled by younger and more diverse people. The one I have in 
> mind is CAPPORT, but I'm not tied to it..
>
> thanks,
> Rob

*BEGONE TROLL!

*

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 20:43:16 -0400

> hand off some duties to more diverse younger people.

While I certainly recognize the value in bringing new people in (of any 
age) and also realize the value in training new generations of Internet 
protocol engineers, I strongly object to favoring people because of 
their age or lack thereof.   I certainly don't think it should happen on 
a per group basis.   Age discrimination is as evil as any other form of 
discrimination.

Keith

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:57:01 -0700

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 5:42 PM Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:

> *BEGONE TROLL!*

Hello Dan,

I don't think that is a very nice thing to say, but I like the text
formatting.

Is there something that offends you about handing off IETF matters to a
younger and more diverse set of members? After all, people will retire.

I would like to understand that concern.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 21:02:17 -0400

> a per group basis.   Age discrimination is as evil as any other form of

Strongly agreed. I'll add that:

* New ideas nearly always benefit from some consideration paid to past
experience in similar problem spaces.
* Has the OP even seen the IAB or the IESG? They don't exactly look like a
bunch of greybeards to me.
* Those with time, energy, passion, expertise, and leadership skills will
naturally rise to the top in an organization like this. The IETF is
probably the closest thing to a meritocracy in which I've ever
participated. If there's a problem with lack of diversity, it's in the pool
of people from which the leadership is drawn.
* We should (and AFAICT do) encourage folks to get involved if they can
usefully contribute, regardless of age, ethnicity, race, citizenship, etc.
We host meetings around the globe (often in places that are expensive
and/or extremely inconvenient for the people who do the actual work, I
might add) partly to assist in outreach to potential new participants.
Regardless, we alone can contribute only modestly to addressing the
cultural factors that limit participation by certain demographics, and here
I think we do a reasonable job.

Kyle

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 17:14:03 -0800

> hand off some duties to more diverse younger people.

I think that the question of the next generation of leadership
is widely recognized as something we need to address, and something
a few of us are working on.  You'll find less agreement about
diversity, unfortunately, despite research results overwhelmingly
concluding that more diverse groups tend to outperform less
diverse groups along a number of vectors.

It's also been the case that some very capable new people have shown
up, looked at the organization, and decided to take their work
elsewhere.  We're also looking at why that happens, because those
people were potential future leaders, as well.

I'm not sure that targeting specific working groups or work areas
is likely to be productive, but I do think in general when chair/
editor/whatever positions open up, in any area or working group,
ADs are being more proactive than they used to be about bringing
in new people.  And it's also important for people who are
interested in becoming more involved in the organization to
volunteer for things as they open up (including things that
don't typically have openings as such, like the directorates).

So yes, it's an issue, and yes, some of us are trying to address
it.

Melinda
-- 
Software longa, hardware brevis

PGP key fingerprint  4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
                     34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 21:22:24 -0400

> people were potential future leaders, as well.

I'm curious.   Are y'all also looking at experienced people whom IETF 
has driven away, and why that happens?

Keith

---

From: Jared Mauch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 21:23:57 -0400

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 9:14 PM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I’ve often looked at this (and other industry locations) scratching my head
going: why would any person who isn’t a masochist come here and try to do
work.  I’ve observed people being chased away, both those that might be trolls,
but also people who are just coming to ask a series of questions to expand
their knowledge.

It’s getting late here today for me personally, but how do you even go about
digesting the threads today on ietf@?

I think the most valuable e-mail was actually the one (which nobody replied to)
asking (and I think it was possibly begging) to take the IETF LC discussion to
another list.

Be someone who makes the IETF welcoming to new people.  Digesting the e-mail list
today is more of an example of what I describe as the culture of cheap communications..

I started out with UUCP for e-mail and thought went into long-distance communication
as it was expensive.  Now we have instant communication at a cost that
drops on a per-bit basis each year (or stays flat based on the economics of customer
acquisition and record keeping).  Just because you can send communication doesn’t
mean you should, or it’s the most welcoming.  People will argue with me about if we should
be friendly, direct (sometimes bordering on rude) or otherwise, but with a whole set of
communication, SAA, Tone, etc.. consider now how it will be seen today but in the
archive to a newcomer who has a great idea where the IETF is the place it should be done.

- Jared

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 18:44:10 -0700

On 9/3/19 5:57 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 5:42 PM Dan Harkins <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
>     *BEGONE TROLL!
>     *
>
>
> Hello Dan,
>
> Is there something that offends you about handing off IETF matters to 
> a younger and more diverse set of members? After all, people will retire.
>

   It is my contention that you are trolling this list trying to get a 
rise out
of people. And I take exception to it. That is my only concern. It might be
funny for you to see a whole bunch of people start arguing about 
"communities"
and their representation and things like that but it's trolling straight up.

   Dan.

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:02:54 -0700

This is pretty much the definition of a personal attack. But it's OK with
me.

I am fine with it, and I would like Dan to feel free to send further
messages along these lines.

thanks,
Rob

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:44 PM Dan Harkins <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> *BEGONE TROLL! *
>   It is my contention that you are trolling this list trying to get a rise
> out

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 22:23:54 -0400

Rob,

Speaking as one of those white, male, and arguably past
middle-aged guys, I've taken the position for about the last
decade that my own time was better spent in advising, coaching,
and other support roles than in explicit leadership ones.  I've
taken on one WG Chair position during that period because it
didn't look like there was any practical alternative but tried
to see to it that younger people did most of the work and
learned in the process (I'm not sure I succeeded, but I tried).
And I encouraged the Nomcom to put me back on the IAB for one
term because I thought my perspective would be useful but
stepped down at the end of that term (I admit I'm considering
whether to do that again).  In that same period, I've helped a
number of newcomers get initial drafts prepared and so on.  

I don't know if that is a good example or not.  My personality
does not make me an ideal candidate for the role I've tried to
take on and, as members of the present and past EDU efforts can
tell you, I've got strong opinions and can be annoying to work
with. Each of the older and more experienced folks should make
their own decisions about when or if to make similar
transitions.  At one time, I believed that everyone stepping off
the IESG --voluntarily or not-- should devote themselves
primarily to bringing others along rather than finding new
places to "lead".  Maybe I still do.

I think that constitutes "working to hand off to younger
people".  But it covers  something that I think your note
misses.  I've observed that one of the worst tendencies in
industries related to the Internet is putting people in new
positions or promoting them with lines that amount to
"congratulations, you are now an X", where "X" might be
"manager", "designer", "expert in some previously unknown
field", etc.   In general, if one takes a WG and says (this is
probably more extreme than you intended) "no one gets to
participate in this if they have been around the IETF more than
ten years or can remember when the first packets moved over the
ARPANET", that is likely to be a recipe for failure.  Yes, some
people might rise to the job, but I think we can do better by
recognizing that, for example, good WG Chairs grow out of
learning, experience, and lots of support and not an hour course
or being congratulated by an AD.. usually even if the
prospective Chairs think they are ready.  

It seems to me that we need at least two things.  One is a
supply of incoming younger people, ideally a diverse one.  We
need to get better at finding them and bringing them in and also
at not scaring or driving them off.  The other is a plan about
getting support for those who show even minimal potential that
moves well beyond a few hours during the week of IETF and that
may need to be proactive rather than waiting for the newcomers
to ask for help.   I think the more senior people can help with
those things by volunteering for those more education and
supportive roles, acting as advisors and, if necessary,
co-chairs for younger people and first-time WG chairs, and
generally not being in the way.  I don't think that is quite
enough of a plan.

 best,
   john

--On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 17:35 -0700 Rob Sayre
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I noticed there were some parts of the last IETF meeting (105)
> that were sparsely attended. And, the attendees of those
> meetings tended to be white, mostly male, and at least
> middle-aged. There's nothing wrong with that: no one chooses
> their age, gender, or skin color.
> 
> Although there is value in experience, maybe the IETF should
> work to hand off some duties to more diverse younger people.
> 
> As a start, I propose identifying some current groups that
> could be better-handled by younger and more diverse people.
> The one I have in mind is CAPPORT, but I'm not tied to it.
> 
> thanks,
> Rob

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 22:39:33 -0400

Let me understand this.  You propose that the IETF engage in 
discriminatory behavior and you don't really understand why it might be 
considered a troll-like posting?

I'm not sure why you mentioned CAPPORT - AFAICT from the archives, 
you've never posted to the mailing list.   But seriously, the way to get 
a chair position for a specific group is to make the case to the AD.  If 
you've got good candidates, (or you want to volunteer yourself), seems 
like we'd be happy for the help.   Or get your feet wet by acting as an 
editor or even note-taker - maybe more work than a chair job and more 
thankless, but it's a known path to becoming a WG chair at some point.

Or act as a recruiter to get the candidates that can do the work.

In any event, I'm adding this thread to my kill file.

Later, Mike

On 9/3/2019 10:02 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> This is pretty much the definition of a personal attack. But it's OK 
> with me.
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:44 PM Dan Harkins <[email-masked] 
>>     I don't think that is a very nice thing to say, but I like the
>>     text formatting.
>>
>>     Is there something that offends you about handing off IETF
>>     matters to a younger and more diverse set of members? After all,
>>     people will retire.
>>
>       It is my contention that you are trolling this list trying to
>     get a rise out

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 22:39:37 -0400

Hi Rob, all,

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 10:02 PM, Rob Sayre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> This is pretty much the definition of a personal attack. But it's OK with me.
> 
> I am fine with it, and I would like Dan to feel free to send further messages along these lines.

That may be the case, but name-calling (“troll” or otherwise) is not appropriate for this mailing list, is inconsistent with BCP 54, and is included in the catalog of behaviors that the IESG has been discussing with the WG chairs about discouraging <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/DraftListOfBadBehaviour>. I’m hopeful we can all try to avoid it as best we can.

Regards,
Alissa

> 
> thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:44 PM Dan Harkins <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 5:42 PM Dan Harkins <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 
>>   BEGONE TROLL!
>> 
>> Hello Dan,
>> 
>> I don't think that is a very nice thing to say, but I like the text formatting. 
>> 
>> Is there something that offends you about handing off IETF matters to a younger and more diverse set of members? After all, people will retire.
>> 
>   It is my contention that you are trolling this list trying to get a rise out
> funny for you to see a whole bunch of people start arguing about "communities"

---

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 22:46:05 -0400

> but also people who are just coming to ask a series of questions to expand

There are also people who are chased away because they float technical
ideas that are politically unpopular within the IETF. I will refrain from
citing specific examples, but I know of at least 3 people who stopped
participating because they perceived (whether accurately or not) that they
were being attacked personally. That I would contend is a much bigger issue
than a lack of diversity because it drives away good people who clearly
want to participate, but want to solve technical problems instead of
spending time navigating an ideological minefield or subjecting themselves
to insults, ridicule, or contempt.

We need to do a better job of giving real consideration to ideas that don't
align perfectly with a set of litmus tests or to conceptions of the ideal
(but unachievable) public internet. I would strongly argue that our first
duty is to solve technical problems, not societal ones: as a group, I don't
think we're particularly good at the latter; we greatly overestimate the
impact of protocol design on public policy; and frankly there are
organizations better positioned, staffed, and aligned to do those things.

Kyle

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:48:18 -0700

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 7:24 PM John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think the more senior people can help with

 Hi John,

I think the thing that we may be missing is that this can all be fun!

I've quietly learned vast amounts from you, and many other long-time IETF
members.

I do think the ball got dropped on DNS security, but I can't say I would
have done better in the moment.

Otherwise, there's no dispute. I thank the people who've contributed so
much.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 02:55:38 +0000 (UTC)

There is no mention of age in RFC7704. (That document wouldn't getpublished today - it was at the discretion of the RFC Editor.)

"no one chooses their... gender"? where have you been? so unwoke.

L.
"there's nothing wrong with that, so let's fix it!"

Lloyd Wood [email-masked] http://about.me/lloydwood 

    On Wednesday, 4 September 2019, 10:36:36 GMT+10, Rob Sayre <[email-masked]> wrote:  
 
 Hi,

I noticed there were some parts of the last IETF meeting (105) that were sparsely attended. And, the attendees of those meetings tended to be white, mostly male, and at least middle-aged. There's nothing wrong with that: no one chooses their age, gender, or skin color.
Although there is value in experience, maybe the IETF should work to hand off some duties to more diverse younger people.
As a start, I propose identifying some current groups that could be better-handled by younger and more diverse people. The one I have in mind is CAPPORT, but I'm not tied to it..
thanks,Rob

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 23:09:21 -0400

I think it's interesting that IESG's list of bad behavior cites "sexist 
comments or overtones" and "racist comments or overtones", but not 
"ageist comments or overtones" and actually appears to endorse ageism: 
'Avoiding bad behavior between "old-timers" and those who "can take 
it"'... thus explicitly associating "bad behavior" with age.

And while I think it's fine to try to draft a list of bad behavior - 
because I definitely appreciate efforts to define that more precisely - 
is it really fine to try to enforce that list without getting IETF 
consensus on it?

Keith

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:48:05 +0200

Skickat från min iPhone

> 4 sep. 2019 kl. 03:22 skrev Keith Moore <[email-masked]>:
> 
> I'm curious.   Are y'all also looking at experienced people whom IETF has driven away, and why that happens?
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> 

Thats easy. Just look at whomever has recently unsubbed from ietf-shitstorm.

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 16:17:29 +1000

Succession planning is normal. All WG and all structural entities need
a succession plan, even if the plan is simply to adhere to some model
of calling out for noms and accepting noms under a nomcom. And also
understanding "charter" and "end of life" in the same sentence(s).

Succession planning in documents is perhaps less normal but not so
abnormal I can't conceive of consciously choosing to ask younger
people from diverse contexts to engage.

If you call it succession planning and explicitly seek diverse people,
I feel like you're there. If you start nominating goals to diversity,
sure, that gets a bit heated, but can we accept the principle.

In geologic time, we're all stone. I have a succession plan at work I
am personally choosing to enact, why wouldn't I seek one here?

-G

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 15:29:40 +0900

> has driven away, and why that happens?

I attended an IEEE802 wireless interim meeting to find several
senior people once active in IETF.

Though I don't know why they leave, I felt major difference
is people there understand, partly because of narrow scope on
L2/L1 only, all the relevant technologies well. Though they
decide by vote, their decisions tends to rely not on political
debates and compromises but on technical discussions often
supported by performance comparison measured by simulations
and experiments.

That is, people there are real professionals.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 04:04:43 -0400

> am personally choosing to enact, why wouldn't I seek one here?

There's a difference between an individual choosing to enact a 
succession plan for him- or herself, and an organization deliberately 
seeking to marginalize or displace its experienced people who haven't 
expressed an interest in leaving.   When said organization becomes 
actively hostile to older participants, as this one has clearly become, 
there's no justification for it. It's nothing but ageist prejudice.

Keith

---

From: Michel Py <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 02:56:33 +0000

> Keith Moore wrote :

I am about to unsubscribe to this mailing list. I have better and more productive things in life to do.
Before I go, I have to say this :
Keith and I have been life-long nemesis. For decades, we fought and many times in terms that were not "nice".

I prefer to have Keith contradicting me than the IETF doing nothing about nothing.
Keith has the courage of his opinions. For that, I respect him.

History will tell.

I say : IPv6 is a failure.

Keith, you will see this because you are in the recipient list.
I bet you that the IETF censorship will not let this through.

Michel, signing off.

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 11:33:01 -0400

> I think we do a reasonable job.

I agree with Kyle's points and will add some recent observations.

I have been mentoring a few new to the IETF participants informally,
helping them to wade through IETF behaviors and responses.  I am pretty
sure if I wasn't helping, they would have left by now.  Luckily, they
haven't as they are very good technically and bring a different
perspective.  Preconceived notions of what they may support have painful to
negotiate, even on arguments that have long been won and the IETF has
official documented stances on.  This totally confuses me... take these as
done and assume the position stands, even plainly state them without
smugness, and don't beat good people down.

I've seen rude messages sent directly to them that are dismissive.  In some
cases, I think it's more the person sending this message does not have
insight into the area of work and assume the area of work doesn't matter.
Tech evolves and IETF participation changes over time with these new work
areas.  This needs to be embraced.

Perhaps others could make a point of forming relationships with newer
participants as a way to help with this behavior to try to retain the good
talent.

We should also be pointing out to those who are less than polite to think
more about what they send.

Best regards,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 11:49:59 -0400

Kathleen, thanks for your comments and especially your efforts to identify specific problem areas.  I find those much more constructive than attacks on “tone” or participants’ ages.

> Perhaps others could make a point of forming relationships with newer participants as a way to help with this behavior to try to retain the good talent.

I find myself wondering if the organization could do more to foster such relationships and establish mentorships - though I fear that the same kinds of prejudices we’re seeing from some leaders would affect those too.   

Keith

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 15:00:00 -0400

--On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 11:49 -0400 Keith Moore
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Kathleen, thanks for your comments and especially your efforts
> to identify specific problem areas.  I find those much more
> constructive than attacks on "tone" or participants'
> ages.
> 
>> Perhaps others could make a point of forming relationships
>> with newer participants as a way to help with this behavior
>> to try to retain the good talent.
> 
> I find myself wondering if the organization could do more to
> foster such relationships and establish mentorships - though I
> fear that the same kinds of prejudices we're seeing from
> some leaders would affect those too.   

Keith,

Part of the conclusions and actions that led to my note about my
own behavior ended up with me in a place very similar to the one
Kathleen described for herself.  The solution to many of these
problems involves individuals picking out relative-newcomer
individuals who show promise, seem exceptionally confused but
sincere, or both and stepping in and helping them.  That can be
done individually, without any additional organizational
structure or plans to "foster relationships", and perhaps even
instead of spending large amounts of time on the IETF list
bemoaning our lot or trying to make plans.  

I don't have data, but my completely anecdotal observations,
including some answers to questions I've asked people I've
stepped in to help, is that our various formal efforts to
educate and integrate newcomers (including newcomers tutorials,
quick connections sessions, the meet and greet, etc.) are not
particularly successful.  I'm not suggesting they are not useful
or should be discontinued, but several of the people I've worked
with have been down that path and still need help with things
that path should, IMO, have covered and helped with.

So, concern about prejudices aside and the possibility of
putting more structure around (or "fostering") these efforts
notwithstanding, I suggest that the thing we know has been
successful (I can remember when you arrived in the IETF as a
newcomer) is those one-on-one efforts.  So let me suggest that,
rather than keeping this long thread going, each of us who is
genuinely concerned about newcomers and younger participants
watch whatever list we normally watch, try to detect people who
are new, confused, and/or need help, and reach out to them in
private email and offer to help.   Sometimes that help will be
about navigating procedures, sometimes offering advice about how
the IETF works, sometimes it will be about pointing them to the
right people or WGs and performing virtual introductions,
sometimes it may even involve helping them turn preliminary
thoughts into a -00 I-D and walking them through the posting
process.   

I've done all of those things.  I assume Kathleen and others
have too.  But the key solution appears to be more of us, not
putting the same energy into complaining or wishing that someone
else would behave differently.  The latter two may be worthwhile
too, but it gets old quickly (at least in the sense that those
who most need to listen tune out instead) and, unlike the
one-on-one helping approach, there is little evidence of its
producing useful results.

best,
   john

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 15:22:35 -0400

John,

I respect your efforts, and those of Kathleen and others, to mentor new 
people.  I wouldn't mind helping myself, but new people are generally 
not visible to me unless I attend meetings, which is problematic both 
for reasons of expense and reasons of stress. The thought of spending 
thousands of dollars to participate in what has often become an 
extremely dysfunctional discussion environment (though this does vary 
from one WG to another), and endure more abuse in the process, is just 
too depressing.   But if there were some other way to connect new people 
to remote participants, that might be helpful, and that's why I asked 
about other efforts.

And I respect your right, and others' rights, to make individual 
judgments and choices about how to best further IETF's mission. If you 
choose to do work more behind-the-scenes I wish you well in your 
efforts.   We certainly need lots of help of various kinds. Meanwhile 
it's increasingly clear that some IETF leaders' actions (promoting 
censorship for arbitrary reasons and also overtly promoting 
discrimination) are having a chilling effect on IETF's ability to do 
sound technical work, and exacerbate the very toxicity that some leaders 
claim to be trying to remedy.   I have seen no sign that these efforts 
have been curtailed.   Until they are curtailed, I believe it will 
continue to be necessary to call them out.   But I remain hopeful that 
the problems will be addressed.  And I will also continue to try to 
recognize positive developments that come to my attention.

You mentioned remembering when I first came to IETF.   What I remember 
about my first meeting (St. Louis) is being pleasantly surprised, even 
shocked, at how eager the participants were to have a new and 
well-informed participant, and how welcome my input was in the 
discussions that we had that week.   It was a complete contrast to 
today's environment of general hostility.   Of course conditions are 
different now, but so is the organization.

I think the biggest problem we have is that we've lost the sense of 
collaborating for a common purpose.    I don't see how we can restore 
that as long as the leadership promotes divisiveness.

Keith

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 16:52:48 -0400

Keith,

This is a note I would normally probably send privately, but I
hope it will be helpful to others.

Inline.

--On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 15:22 -0400 Keith Moore
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John,
> 
> I respect your efforts, and those of Kathleen and others, to
> mentor new people.  I wouldn't mind helping myself, but new
> people are generally not visible to me unless I attend
> meetings, which is problematic both for reasons of expense and
> reasons of stress. The thought of spending thousands of
> dollars to participate in what has often become an extremely
> dysfunctional discussion environment (though this does vary
> from one WG to another), and endure more abuse in the process,
> is just too depressing.   But if there were some other way
> to connect new people to remote participants, that might be
> helpful, and that's why I asked about other efforts.

First of all, I've been attending, on average, one meeting a
year or less for that last several years.   That may be more
than you are getting too, but probably not a lot more.

So, the place where I'm seeing those newcomers is that I track
several mailing lists including, but not limited to, the IETF
one (as, I assume, do you -- and there is probably some overlap
between the lists I follow and those that you do).  What I've
found in the last 30 or so years with the IETF is that the point
at which newcomers most need assistance is whether they start
posting about things they consider substantive and relevant on
mailing lists.   The newcomers who show up at meetings before
reading and maybe posting to mailing list are not hopeless, but
the ones who are likely to bring value to the IETF do, as a
consequence of how we work, show up on the mailing lists,
whether before their first f2f meeting or after it.   That is
the point at which I have been reaching out, so whether I attend
meetings is more or less irrelevant (although, if I do attend a
meeting and find someone wandering around looking lost, I am
likely to offer directions or other hand).

I wish I thought that asking the IESG, or even whatever the EDU
team is called now, to come up with new ideas and procedures in
this area would be helpful, but history suggests otherwise.  If
you come up with ideas and push them, I'm more optimistic (but,
FWIW, I've been pushing for inclusion of not-at-the-f2f-meetings
mentors/guides, whether for in-meetings newcomers or those who
are also remote, for years with very little practical traction).
So I do my thing, Kathleen does her thing, and I invite you and
anyone else with the right concerns and background to join us by
doing yours.

> And I respect your right, and others' rights, to make
> individual judgments and choices about how to best further
> IETF's mission. If you choose to do work more
> behind-the-scenes I wish you well in your efforts.   We
> certainly need lots of help of various kinds. Meanwhile it's
> increasingly clear that some IETF leaders' actions (promoting
> discrimination) are having a chilling effect on IETF's ability
> to do sound technical work, and exacerbate the very toxicity
> that some leaders claim to be trying to remedy.   I have
> seen no sign that these efforts have been curtailed.   Until
> they are curtailed, I believe it will continue to be necessary
> to call them out.   But I remain hopeful that the problems
> will be addressed.  And I will also continue to try to

As you or others may have deduced from comments I've made on
other threads, I have started wondering whether the IETF is
beginning to suffer from some age-related degenerative disease
or whether our fundamental models for getting things done are
appropriate for a rapidly-developing Internet in which most of
the protocols and technology are new but not so well suited to a
more mature Internet with more mature technologies and
protocols.  If that were really the case, then several of the
things you comment on above (and interpret the way you do) are
just symptoms and, even if they could be fixed, doing so would
amount to playing whack-a-mole with other symptoms.   Now, if
and when I become convinced of that, I will presumably stop
putting effort into newcomers, protocol and procedural
development efforts in the IETF, and so on, so you can assume I
have not quite degenerated into terminal pessimism.  Yet.

>From that standpoint, your paragraph immediately above disturbs
me, not necessarily because I disagree with your description of
the problems (I agree with some, but not all, of it) but because
you seem to be writing in a passive, wait for something to
happen, style, e.g., "until they are curtailed" and "will be
addressed".  You've been around for a long time and know how
things work.  You've been a document author, IIR a WG Chair, and
an AD.   You've had good ideas about how to fix problems in the
past and, I assume, still do.   Do what we've both told
newcomers to do over the years, e.g., "don't just complain on a
list, write up a proposal in I-D form so that a serious and
focused discussion can occur".  If there are multiple drafts
around that address issues for which there is consensus in the
community that they really are problems, maybe it is time to use
the option in REFC 2026 that we've never used: an appeal to the
ISOC BoT on the grounds that the procedures (and the IESG
interpretation of them) are inconsistent with fairness.  If you
want to, you know how to do that too.

If none of that appeals, perhaps you might be figuring out how
to convince the Nomcom to change things.   Or perhaps you should
put your name forward for, e.g., the IAB and convince the Nomcom
that you could do that job effectively without attending
meetings and that anyone who claims that a large travel budget
is necessary for effective participation is part of the problem
and should not be in the leadership.

If you think you are being abused (not just disagreed with), I
hope you have tried the ombudsteam.  No process is perfect, but
that one has been, in my experience, quite good.

One thing I'm fairly sure of is that, if those of us who have a
lot of experience simply sit around, describing problems,
bemoaning our fate, and waiting for someone else to make things
happen,  the odds of significant improvement are low.
 
> You mentioned remembering when I first came to IETF.   What
> I remember about my first meeting (St. Louis) is being
> pleasantly surprised, even shocked, at how eager the
> participants were to have a new and well-informed participant,
> and how welcome my input was in the discussions that we had
> that week.   It was a complete contrast to today's
> environment of general hostility.   Of course conditions are
 
> I think the biggest problem we have is that we've lost the
> sense of collaborating for a common purpose.    I don't see
> how we can restore that as long as the leadership promotes
> divisiveness.

I hesitate to suggest that there may be some international
trends of that sort because it would really sadden me if our
leadership had become part of those trends.  But, again, some of
those things --including the differences you believe you see
(not disagreeing, just trying to not comment) -- are part of the
reason for the organizational degenerative disease hypothesis.
If we believe that such a disease has set in and become
irreversible, than the one really constructive discussion is
where work should be steered while there is still a choice.  

best,
   john

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:22:39 -0700

Hi Rob,
At 05:35 PM 03-09-2019, Rob Sayre wrote:
>were sparsely attended. And, the attendees of those meetings tended 
>to be [removed]. There's nothing wrong with that: no one chooses 
>their [removed].
>
>better-handled by

My reading of the relevant rules is that the message which I am 
sending is off-topic for this mailing list.  For what it is worth, 
one of the points in your message (re. newcomers) was discussed [1] 
on this mailing list about a decade ago.

There has been various proposals over the years about 
newcomers.  Those proposals do not set a metric for success.  Some 
time ago, I chose a number as part of an effort to get new people 
interested in working for free.  I reached half that number at the 
end of that endeavor.  Based on that, I would describe the venture as 
a failure.

The person selecting people for the various roles is the Area 
Director.  It is his/her responsibility to assess whether the Area is 
attracting new people and whether there aren't any obstacles which 
prevent or discourage those new people from staying around.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SEoPG4pfQVqTtidnvBx5myNcUCU

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:47:24 -0500

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:22:39AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> > sparsely attended. And, the attendees of those meetings tended to be
> > [removed]. There's nothing wrong with that: no one chooses their
> > [removed].
> > 
> My reading of the relevant rules is that the message which I am sending is
> off-topic for this mailing list.  For what it is worth, one of the points in
> your message (re. newcomers) was discussed [1] on this mailing list about a
> decade ago.

Did the SAAs call out Sayre's post as off-topic??  I didn't notice.  But
you know, there's so much noise on this list lately...  If they said
nothing even privately, then frankly that would be another stain on
their recent performance.  We can't quite know if they objected
privately, of course, so it's hard to say.

> There has been various proposals over the years about newcomers.  Those
> proposals do not set a metric for success.  Some time ago, I chose a number
> as part of an effort to get new people interested in working for free.  I
> reached half that number at the end of that endeavor.  Based on that, I
> would describe the venture as a failure.
> 
> The person selecting people for the various roles is the Area Director.  It
> is his/her responsibility to assess whether the Area is attracting new
> people and whether there aren't any obstacles which prevent or discourage
> those new people from staying around.

Not quite so.  We're a VOLUNTEER organization.  That means we're
self-selected.  ADs don't get to select participants.  ADs may get to
select or help select chairs for WGs, but that's about it.

Now, some volunteers are asked by their employers to work on IETF
matters, some by their customers, and others do it for other reasons.

In principle the IETF could ask employers to be more, er, discriminating
as to who they assign to work at the IETF.  I wonder what the EEOC in
the U.S. would think of that, were the IETF to do such a thing.  I can
imagine lawsuits.  So before the IETF does any such thing, I'd recommend
talking to lawyers.  In any case, that leaves all other self-selected
volunteers free to self-select.

IETF leadership is another story.  Though again, one wonders what the
EEOC would think of the NomCom discriminating on bases for which
discrimination in employment is forbidden -- the NomCom isn't an
employer, so perhaps "nothing" is what the EEOC would think, but maybe
Congress would think something else entirely.  Again, speak to a lawyer
before you think of engaging in such discrimination at the NomCom!

Even so, the NomCom selects from among the group of self-selected
volunteers.

We can have a self-selected volunteer organization with zero control
over its volunteers diversity scores, or we can have a non-volunteer
organization that might be able to have an effect on the diversity of
its actual participants through bylaws and governance that would have
to..  not run afoul of American laws (the IETF, ISOC, and related
entities being American legal entities).

Who here can imagine the IETF no longer being a volunteer organization?

I can, with effort anyways.  I can imagine the IETF being like the
Unicode Consortium, the IEEE, OASIS, ISO/ANSI, ITU-T -- pay-big-bucks-
to-play.  It's somewhat surprising that the IETF has not yet become a
pay-to-play organization, or that it exists at all instead of the ITU-T
taking over its functions.  The IETF becoming pay-to-play would be the
simplest way to put an end to all the recent bickering on this list, so
there's that.

Nico
--

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:10:04 -0400

> Even so, the NomCom selects from among the group of self-selected

I'm really trying to stay out of this discussion, but I did quickly
want to add something:
"the NomCom selects from among the *limited* group of self-selected volunteers."

The nomination period is currently open -- it's easy to nominate
someone, the form is here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2019/nominate/
The list of desired expertise is here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2019/expertise/

The list of open positions is: 6 positions for IAB, and one each for
ART, INT, OPS, RTG, SEC, TSV. Also one open LLC Board Member position
and one IETF Trust position.

The nomcom can only appoint from the slate of volunteers -- help build
the IETF you want by providing them with candidates to choose from...

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:36:36 -0700

> privately, of course, so it's hard to say.

I was sort of hoping to let this thread drop (as I hope others will do in
other threads...). FWIW, they did not communicate with me about this
thread. I had thought it on topic, as IIRC the very same issue was raised
in one of the IETF 105 plenaries (I watched them on YouTube).

but, again... it would be nice to return to calm mostly-technical disussion.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:12:17 -0700

Hi Nico,
>privately, of course, so it's hard to say.

I don't know whether the Sergeant-at-arms pointed out that the 
message wsa off-topic.  My comment was about the message which I was 
sending instead of the message from Mr Sayre.  The aftermath of the 
last intervention(s) made it very difficult to discourage postings to 
the mailing list.

>select or help select chairs for WGs, but that's about it.

I gather that the point in the above is that participation in the 
organization is voluntary.  I was reading a 2013 message in which it 
is mentioned that the organization has a bad reputation in other 
communities.  People who are unfamiliar with the IETF style of 
discussion would be reluctant to get involved in mailing list 
discussions.  When I look at the mailing  list, I see emails from 
about the same persons as in 2013.

>matters, some by their customers, and others do it for other reasons.

Ok.

>volunteers free to self-select.

The person(s) transmitting that message on behalf of the IETF might 
end up getting the IETF involved in the internal matters of some 
other organization(s).  A lawyer might ask why the person is even 
doing that as it does sound like a bad idea at the outset.

>before you think of engaging in such discrimination at the NomCom!

I'll leave it to anyone familiar with the (U.S.) EEOC to comment 
about the above.

>entities being American legal entities).

The relevant laws is one of the topics which is rarely, if ever, 
discussed in public.

>simplest way to put an end to all the recent bickering on this list, so

The recent quarrels are not directly related to the IETF functioning 
as a volunteer organization.  The IETF is, indirectly, and with some 
exceptions, pay-to-play, e.g. there is an attendance fee for 
meetings.  In my opinion, the current model does not work well in the 
Southern Hemisphere.  That opinion is based on the feedback which I 
received over the years.  I am not arguing for changing the model as 
it would be unrealistic [1].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. 
https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/2019-06-ietf-monthly-statement_-_June2019.pdf

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 10:35:08 -0400

I have been concerned about this for a while. I was one of the youngest
people engaged in IETF when I started 25 years ago and if you set aside the
grad students who participate while they are doing their thesis, I am still
one of the younger participants.

If you look at average age, it is misleading because the younger folk don't
tend to stick around. And that is probably due in large part to the
dynamics of our industry which has an even bigger demographic issue that
will probably not be acknowledged until the growth suddenly halts as
Moore's law is repealed and all the youngsters go into biotechnology.

I do have a recruitment plan. I see a vast untapped desire for an open
end-to-end secure federated messaging service with Data at Rest security.
There are proprietary schemes in that space (Signal, Telegram, AIP) but
they are all limited in scope because they don't support open services and
so it is impossible for two enterprises to connect unless they choose a
single supplier.

There is a community that is very interested in deploying this technology
to secure the communications infrastructures of political campaigns and I
have begun making contacts in that regard. Some of you will remember I used
the same strategy to promote the Web over rival network hypertext schemes
in the early 90s.

So here is the curious thing, each one of the groups contacted so far has
had the same response: This is something we should do but we should make
our rivals aware of it as well because the end goal here is protecting the
democratic process, not just winning an election.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:36:57 -0400 (EDT)

Phillip,

> had the same response: This is something we should do but we should make our
> rivals aware of it as well because the end goal here is protecting the

IMHO, if the interest is in protecting the democratic process, the first 
place we should look is the digital voting infrastructure, as that is the 
vector most abused.  Knowing what I do about network and computer security 
in general, I have come to the conclusion that hand counted paper ballots 
with a strong chain of custody are the only way to ensure a free and fair 
election.

Scott

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:56:07 -0700

[Changing the subject line because this is a change of topic.]

> with a strong chain of custody are the only way to ensure a free and fair

This is pretty off-topic for IETF, but might be interesting to people.

I certainly agree that software independence (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_independence) is a good objective
for voting systems, and hand-counted paper ballots are one good way to
achieve that. However, there are voting environments where they are
problematic. Specifically, because the time to hand-count ballots scales
with both the number of ballots and the number of contests, in places like
California where there a large number of contests per election it can be
difficult to do a complete hand-count in a reasonable period of time.

One good alternative is hand-marked optical scan ballots which are then
verified via a risk limiting audit (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-limiting_audit). This can provide a much
more efficient count that still has software independence up to a given
risk level \alpha.

-Ekr

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:20:49 -0400

On 12 Sep 2019, at 11:56, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:37 AM <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> I certainly agree that software independence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_independence <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_independence>) is a good objective for voting systems, and hand-counted paper ballots are one good way to achieve that. However, there are voting environments where they are problematic. Specifically, because the time to hand-count ballots scales with both the number of ballots and the number of contests, in places like California where there a large number of contests per election it can be difficult to do a complete hand-count in a reasonable period of time.
> 
> One good alternative is hand-marked optical scan ballots which are then verified via a risk limiting audit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-limiting_audit <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-limiting_audit>). This can provide a much more efficient count that still has software independence up to a given risk level \alpha.

The theory and practice of elections and the specific challenges with on-line voting is a whole ecosystem of its own with conferences, journals and an active community of academics, vendors and governments discussing a fairly broad spectrum from information theory, statistics and cryptography through to operational and platform security, software quality, public policy and law.

I am no expert in any of this but I happen to have an academic supervisor who is. If anybody would like an introduction to that world e.g. as an alternative to trying to reinvent it at the IETF, I'd be happy to make one.

Joe

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:52:43 -0400

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:36 AM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> our

This did not come up in the country concerned since all their elections are
by paper ballots counted by hand. The confidentiality concerns are around
securing demographics, campaign plans, schedules, strategy, etc. There are
also authenticity concerns which are rather broader.

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 21:52:06 -0400

We have a few resident experts in this area (like myself and EKR); happy to
lead a discussion on this or present as needed.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 14:21 Joe Abley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-limiting_audit). This can provide a
> much more efficient count that still has software independence up to a
> given risk level \alpha.
>
>
> The theory and practice of elections and the specific challenges with
> on-line voting is a whole ecosystem of its own with conferences, journals
> and an active community of academics, vendors and governments discussing a
> fairly broad spectrum from information theory, statistics and cryptography
> through to operational and platform security, software quality, public
> policy and law.
>
> I am no expert in any of this but I happen to have an academic supervisor
> who is. If anybody would like an introduction to that world e.g. as an
> alternative to trying to reinvent it at the IETF, I'd be happy to make one.
>
>
> Joe
>
-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 03:28:41 -0400 (EDT)

> I certainly agree that software independence
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_independence) is a good
> objective for voting systems, and hand-counted paper ballots are one
> good way to achieve that.

Hand counted paper ballots are the only way, IMHO.

> However, there are voting environments where
> they are problematic. Specifically, because the time to hand-count
> ballots scales with both the number of ballots and the number of
> contests, in places like California where there a large number of
> contests per election it can be difficult to do a complete hand-count
> in a reasonable period of time.

This depends on what we consider reasonable.  If it takes a month, it 
takes a month, just like the good old days.  The wait is a small price to 
pay in order to ensure the correct functioning of this critical component 
of democracy, difficult or not.

> 
> One good alternative is hand-marked optical scan ballots which are
> then verified via a risk limiting audit
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-limiting_audit). This can provide
> a much more efficient count that still has software independence up to
> a given risk level \alpha.

I, for one, am not really willing to risk optical scan machines having 
hardware backdoors in the processor, as has been demonstrated, or easily 
manipulated firmware, particularly in the name of expediency.  Further, 
this does nothing to address the vectors of vulnerability that lie in the 
central tabulators, or the route the data takes from collection point to 
tabulation point. The latter is potentially an IETF matter, and if so, 
should be addressed with no less fervor than BGP security.

I would cite Bush v Gore, 2000; specifially -19000 votes for Gore in 
Volusia County, FL.  Was the vector the optical scan ballot system, the 
tabulation system, or a routing MITM?  Tough to know, although the 
localization and sneakernet transport system from balloting to tabulation 
in FL generally would rule out a routing problem in this instance.  IIRC, 
there was a questionable route involved in the Ohio, 2004 discrepancy, 
although this could have been manual routing through tunnels that caused 
the issue.  Would publicly hand counted paper ballots have prevented these 
attacks, potentially 18 years of war, falling behind on climate 
adaptation, and a host of other wrongs?  Quite possibly.  This much, I 
know for sure:  without legitimate elections in a democracy, there can be 
no legitimate government.

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 13:19:59 -0400

(I've had this argument dozens maybe hundreds of times, not going to do
that here.)

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 06:20:08 -0400

Sent from my mobile device

> On Sep 14, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> (I've had this argument dozens maybe hundreds of times, not going to do that here.)

Since you cited yourself and EKR as experts that could work on this, where would you like to have the conversation?  A draft perhaps as a starting point as the IETF likes to do things on list, so maybe timing was bad?  A collection of problems with reasoned responses could be useful if this was taken on as work. Or do you have a paper reference with your thoughts/a response?

Best regards,
Kathleen 

> Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www..cdt.org]

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 16:38:33 -0400

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 06:20 Kathleen Moriarty <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Since you cited yourself and EKR as experts that could work on this, where
> would you like to have the conversation?  A draft perhaps as a starting
> point as the IETF likes to do things on list, so maybe timing was bad?  A
> collection of problems with reasoned responses could be useful if this was
> taken on as work. Or do you have a paper reference with your thoughts/a
> response?
>
>
There is a vast literature here. I would be happy to talk more about it
with anyone interested in a more synchronous medium (I'll be in SIN for
106). It doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance to issues at IETF, unless
I'm missing something.

Until then, here is a bit:

The first chapter of my PhD thesis talks about the necessity of
mechanization (and now computerization) of elections in the United States,
good cites there to a handful of books:
https://josephhall.org/papers/jhall-phd.pdf

Doug Jones and Barbara Simons' book has since come out and it is marvelous
on this, I recommend the whole thing:

Here are some good, deep popular articles:

Ronnie Dugger, "Counting Votes" New Yorker (October 30, 1988),
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1988/11/07/counting-votes

Jill Lapore, "Rock, Paper, Scissors; How we used to vote" New Yorker
(October 6, 2008),
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/10/13/rock-paper-scissors

Rebecca Onion, "How did they count all those balls before voting machines"
Slate (November, 8 2016)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/how-did-they-count-ballots-before-voting-machines.html

Best regards,
> Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [
> https://www..cdt.org <https://www.cdt.org>]
>
>
> 1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1401+K+ST+NW+STE+200,+Washington+DC+20005?entry=gmail&source=g>
> -3497
Joseph Lorenzo Hall

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 16:40:02 -0400

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 16:38 Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Since you cited yourself and EKR as experts that could work on this,
>> where would you like to have the conversation?  A draft perhaps as a
>> starting point as the IETF likes to do things on list, so maybe timing was
>> bad?  A collection of problems with reasoned responses could be useful if
>> this was taken on as work. Or do you have a paper reference with your
>> thoughts/a response?
>>
>>

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/B/bo13383590.html

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 23:47:11 +0000

*   There is a vast literature here. I would be happy to talk more about it with anyone interested in a more synchronous medium (I'll be in SIN for 106). It doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance to issues at IETF, unless I'm missing something.

Very very strong +1

Voted multiple times even :)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:51:20 -0400

> There is a vast literature here. I would be happy to talk more about 
> it with anyone interested in a more synchronous medium (I'll be in SIN 
> for 106). It doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance to issues at 
> IETF, unless I'm missing something.

Thanks very much for the references.   Agree that it probably isn't 
strictly relevant to IETF's work, but I'm sure many of us are interested.

Keith

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 20:32:31 -0400 (EDT)

A few point to indicate that in practice, electronic voting apparatus is 
an idea worth abandoning:

Exit polling anomalies:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/16/clinton-does-best-where-voting-machines-flunk-hacking-tests-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-allegations/
Testimony from programmer who wrote vote flipping code:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXyl_YNA8Hs
'Hacking Democracy':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YldIdkjrqM

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019, Keith Moore wrote:

> Thanks very much for the references.   Agree that it probably isn't strictly 
> relevant to IETF's work, but I'm sure many of us are interested.
>
> Keith
>
>
>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:27:23 -0700

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 4:47 PM Salz, Rich <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>    - There is a vast literature here. I would be happy to talk more about
>    it with anyone interested in a more synchronous medium (I'll be in SIN for
> Voted multiple times even :)o the best of my knowledge, nobody is
> clamoring
>

Indeed. As previously noted, even if people wanted to standardize some sort
of Internet voting protocol at IETF -- which to my knowledge they do not --
it would be a bad idea.

-Ekr

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 00:38:23 -0400

Electronic elections are a great idea. Just not for public office.

There are many other applications of election tech. Condo boards, clubs,
professional associations.

What makes a lot of these applications interesting and somewhat easier is
that very often, a ballot need not actually be secret.

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:32 PM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> strictly

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 01:15:10 -0400 (EDT)

> Electronic elections are a great idea. Just not for public office.

I will give you that, but in the use cases you referenced, there is no 
need for a specialty apparatus to perform the job... a general purpose 
networked computer/phone/etc. can provide the client side service 
required.

> https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/16/clinton-does-best-where-voting-mach
> ines-flunk-hacking-tests-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-election-fraud-
>       allegations/

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:44:46 +0200 (CEST)

> Il 17 settembre 2019 07:15 [email-masked] ha scritto:
> 
>  

There are a number of intermediate situations in which the advantage to democracy of faster, cheaper and easier voting, enabling people to vote more often and in higher numbers, may be deemed to outweigh the risks of manipulation - for example, non-binding consultations by a local public authority, or a limited number of absentee votes from abroad, or online voting in a reasonably cooperative context (e.g. an association with hundred of thousands of members). In these cases however you still require a dedicated tool, and you'd still better apply all possible mitigations against manipulation by those running the system, which in general are non-technical but require support in the platform.

At the same time, electronic/online voting for general elections is now a non-starter almost everywhere, at least in Europe - many countries worked on it, introduced it, and then discontinued it because of the risks.

-- 
 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[email-masked] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy