Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Seeking reviews for draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 09 September 2020 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3A33A0B98 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 06:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HeNExSZTfizq for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 06:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 135A63A0B97 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 06:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957F5389C5; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 08:51:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id B_9hRge98Mpr; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 08:51:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45DC4389B3; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 08:51:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B6F8AA; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 09:12:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <edda9433-c95e-4605-b985-a6b8e4c38438@dogfood.fastmail.com>
References: <edda9433-c95e-4605-b985-a6b8e4c38438@dogfood.fastmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 09:12:16 -0400
Message-ID: <4905.1599657136@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/5BDBYII5jGnj6f0lHFDOmEpx1AE>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Seeking reviews for draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 13:12:33 -0000

Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com> wrote:
    > I'm less interested in the discussion of the wider scope and long term
    > plans, not because they aren't important but because based on the
    > discussion so far, they aren't solvable quickly -- and we need a
    > process in place well in advance of next year so we aren't scrambling
    > as much as we did this time around.

Hi, thank you for taking on being document shepherd.
I agree with your accessment that we need the process in place.

I think that the document needs to make the path forward clear: if there are
things that we are considering beyond the immediate changes, then I would
like to have some clear signal to the community.

"Tell me how you'll measure me, and I'll tell you how I'll behave"
 -- I was told that W. Edwards Demming said this, but never did manage
    to track down if it was a true quote.
But, it's a good one.

I would propose that we sort things into three lists.
I don't know if this document needs to contain all of it, or if we want to
form another document, or what exactly.

1) These are the things we plan to implement for 2021.

2) These are the things that we are considering for the future.
   There are either unresolved (but solvable) issues with them and/or
   We didn't want to change too much at once.

3) These are the things that we considered, but which we determined
   we would not or could not do.
   ("Would not" <= we have the data, but it's a bad idea.
    "Could not" <= we either do not have the data yet, and/or collecting it would be bad)

I think that some "would not" bits of (3) could be included in an appendix in
the document as "Bad ideas".
I suggest that another document be written for (2), that it receive an
IETF-wide Consensus Call, but not itself get published.
At a later date, that would be the pallete of things to consider.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide