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

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 04 February 2010 01:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 E6E2F28C0E4 for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:15:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ynW57Si9ghWK for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9533A69AB for <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.43] (adsl-68-122-70-87.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.70.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o141GGJS004244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:16:22 -0800
Message-ID: <4B6A1FDC.8080209@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:16:12 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <4B69F54D.408@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4B69F54D.408@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10354/Wed Feb 3 03:03:21 2010 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:16:22 -0800 (PST)
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
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 01:15:39 -0000

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.

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.

But that's just my opinion.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net