Re: [ietf-outcomes] what's massive?
Peter Saint-Andre <email@example.com> Thu, 04 February 2010 04:45 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2EC28C106 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:45:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 ([22.214.171.124]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SLFkUCJ6ttHX for <email@example.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [126.96.36.199]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33A528C115 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-115.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [188.8.131.52]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F00AC40126; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:46:27 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:46:27 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <email@example.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
References: <4B69F54D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B6A1FDC.email@example.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms010702090501080909030804"
Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] what's massive?
List-Id: IETF Outcomes Wiki discussion list <ietf-outcomes.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes>, <mailto:email@example.com?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/