Re: [ietf-outcomes] Adoption legend summary on each page?

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 2/13/2010 10:42 PM, David Harrington wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I found --, -, 0, +, and ++ fairly intuitive because obviously ++ is
> more than +. (the 0 obviously needs explanation)
> I do not find essential, useful, pending, minor, and failure to be as
> intuitive.

Cognitive styles vary.  Since you found the symbols intuitive, you don't need 
the legend; so the legend is for those who need help.


> I also find the ordering to be unusual.
> I tend to think of numbers, as in graphs, growing larger to the right.
> So I would think the ordering should be --, -, 0, +, ++
> or failure, minor, pending, useful, essential

Starting with the positive is a means of emphasizing it.


>> From my perspective, I think snmpv1 has been massively implemented,
> deployed and used.
> However, many environments deliberately disable snmp for security
> reasons.

SNMPv1 might not be hugely used now, but there was a time when it was.

And this wiki is attempting to gauge whether bits of IETF were /ever/ 
successful, not just whether they are "successful" now.  The wiki is an 
historical marker, not a current news snapshot.


> essential means "Basic or indispensable; necessary"
> I don't know that a protocol that can be disabled in many environments
> should be called "essential".

But it WAS.


> maybe important would be better than essential.
>
> I find it difficult to rate things using different scales mixed
> together. Is essential (i.e. necessary) the opposite of failure (not
> achieving the desired end or ends)? Is useful the opposite of minor? I
> think that you should compare apples with apples; the notations
> equivakent to '-' and '+' should be opposites, so if you are going to
> use "minor" (presumbaly meaning minor usage), then you should also use
> major, as in major usage. Or you should use "very useful", "useful",
> "not useful" and "not used" (or something else that uses relative
> levels of the same metric).

Sounds like the topic divides into

    1)  a determination of whether folks are dissatisfied with the current label 
definitions and then

    2)  an evaluation of alternative proposals.

Note the challenge in the scale's having "not useful" vs. "not used".

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net