Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki

The wiki page includes a line that says: 

'The wiki is only as complete and accurate as community effort makes
it.' 

It would probably be good to add a phrase that makes clear that the
information contained here does not represent the consensus of the IETF.

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-outcomes-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:ietf-outcomes-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:34 PM
> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
> Cc: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Because it would be good to "standardize" our measurements of 
> success and failure of IETF protocols.
> RFC5218 was written, presumably, to help developers better 
> understand what makes a protocol successful.
> The results wiki is, presumably, for a similar purpose.
> It would be nice if the IETF reached consensus on some 
> definitions for success and failure before we start 
> advertising our successes and failures in a public wiki.
> To represent consensus, maybe both the wiki and the definitions in
> RFC5218 need to be modified.
> 
> I support the wiki, but would like the methodology to be 
> documented so different people can edit it in a consistent 
> manner, so readers can interpret it with some consistency. It 
> has too much opportunity for unintended consequences to do it wrong. 
> 
> One problem with a wiki is that it can represent the personal 
> opinion of the last person to edit it, rather than to 
> represent the consensus of the IETF. But it is posted on the 
> official IETF web site, and can easily be mistaken to 
> represent an official statement of consensus.
> 
> dbh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:21 AM
> > To: David Harrington
> > Cc: 'ops-area (IETF)'; ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki
> > 
> > Dave,
> > 
> > On 2/9/2010 7:53 AM, David Harrington wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think it would be good to set success and failure to
> > match rfc 5218,
> > > and have the legends page provide brief descriptions of the 
> > > categories, and reference RFC 5218 for more details.
> > 
> > 
> > The easy question is:  why?
> > 
> > The definition in RFC 5218 is:
> > 
> >       "we consider a successful protocol to be one that 
> both meets its 
> > original
> >       goals and is widely deployed."
> > 
> > This means that a protocol is a failure if it is widely 
> used, but for 
> > different purposes than it was intended.
> > 
> > "Deployed" is also a problem, since there is a long track record of 
> > industry's having deployed something but never actually 
> using it very 
> > much.  I submit all of OSI as a prime example.
> > 
> >       These are the reasons the wiki was premised on the simple 
> > measure of use.
> > 
> > However I note that the column that lists degree of success 
> only uses 
> > the word 'adoption'. However Target Segment uses 'use'.
> > 
> > d/
> > 
> > ps.  I also note you've been busy updating net management-related 
> > entries.  Thanks!
> > 
> > --
> > 
> >    Dave Crocker
> >    Brandenburg InternetWorking
> >    bbiw.net
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-outcomes mailing list
> ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes
> 