Re: [ietf-outcomes] what's massive?

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 04 February 2010 04:45 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2EC28C106 for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:45:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SLFkUCJ6ttHX for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33A528C115 for <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-115.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F00AC40126; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:46:27 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4B6A5123.6010304@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:46:27 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <4B69F54D.408@stpeter.im> <4B6A1FDC.8080209@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B6A1FDC.8080209@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms010702090501080909030804"
Cc: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] what's massive?
X-BeenThere: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Outcomes Wiki discussion list <ietf-outcomes.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes>, <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-outcomes>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes>, <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:45:46 -0000

On 2/3/10 6:16 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/3/2010 2:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> What counts as massive adoption? In discussing this wiki with some XMPP
>> developers just now, we decided that XMPP adoption is somewhere between
>> "some" and "massive". I'd say the same for technologies like SIP.
>> Perhaps we could have:
>>
>> + = some adoption
>> ++ = significant adoption
>> +++ = massive adoption
> 
> 
> FWIW, here's some background that went into the current design of the
> rating scale...
> 
> This all falls into the category of survey research, which ultimately
> calls for a subjective assessment by a person.  Here, we're trying to
> use community rough consensus to validate the assignments.
> 
> I've been calling the current rating model as '5-points with a tail'. 
> The tail is the '++>' extra value, that refers to work which is so
> successful that it prompts follow-on work.

That was another question I had: what is follow-on work?

> What you are suggesting is that it be a 7-point scale.  There is always
> a desire to add gradations to a scale.  Absent careful training for the
> folks assigning values, having more resolution to the scale actually
> makes things more ambiguous, less consistent, and more variable to the
> respondent.
> 
> In addition, it's not clear how much utility there would be in making
> finer-grained assignments, even if they could be made clearly and
> consistently.
> 
> 
> As for where to rank XMPP using the current scale...
> 
> If there is rough consensus that XMPP is a home run, then it should get
> ++.  If there is rough consensus that XMPP is successful, but not quite
> yet massively in use, then it probably warrants a single +.
> 
> As much as some of us use jabber/xmpp, my own impression is that its
> Internet-scale adoption is significant, but is still limited.

That seems reasonable. I tend to be one of those people who is quite
reluctant to select the extreme options on point scales...

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/