Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec

[Anisse Taleb <[e-mail]>]

Dear Ron.

> 
> I thought it was already agreed that the people acting in good faith would
> endeavour to conduct as much of this in parallel as possible.
> 
agreed by who? 

> I'm sure we have plenty of time to file off the rough edges while you
> gather
> enough people to run the two hundred and something nonillion iterations of
> your test that Gregory showed would be necessary for it to approach an even
> remotely significant result that wasn't entirely a function of chance.

Please see my answers to Greg.

> 
> It saddens me to see you play a cheap shot like this at Ben, when so many
> people are eagerly awaiting your explanation as to whether that was simply
> an error in your math, or a factor you had not considered.  Or possibly an
> essential ingredient in your insistence of a single do-or-die test?  That
> nobody could possibly afford to repeat independently ...
>

Cheap-shot:
    * an unnecessarily aggressive and unfair remark directed at a defenseless person
Which part was aggressive and which one was unfair, and why would Ben be a defenseless person ?
In this case all 3 requirements would have to be fulfilled before I consider that as a cheap-shot. 

Please read carefully the following:
> I am not against discussing the size of the test, the draft proposal 
> was exactly made to initiate such discussion...


> 
> 
> So please, we've mapped both extremes of what a non-test might look like
> now,
> and we've clearly shown, with absolute certainty, that this entire group
> will
> never, not before the heat death of the universe, agree upon and perform
> one
> single tell-all test which satisfies them all.  And that's before we
> consider
> the users who aren't represented in this testing yet.
> 

I don't think the proposal made was a non-test or extreme in anyway,
 it was based on the posted examples by Paul to this very mailing list.

Kind regards,
/Anisse