Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sat, 01 December 2012 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0260321E80AD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:08:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDkUAVjbq9hz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC1E21E80AC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qB1L7UCg003189; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:07:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1354396054; bh=5vZ5cD5WvfW4WzmnnDcCU9qJuN/7/FM+isM7lf8oRiw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=hZYovR0Mu9Bf05k4tfoYBeosJEHaVjxKLSSSL5v6OB8C6cZC2/0XHu7AeH3XmXxwQ h6ufUPSEyxrwE5Jb+5I5FGckGUXBq8KydCa5Fu9Sv52Sh4De0qL3ojRW1Zty7yPU+9 C01/UMzktmPx+YeeM8tSoUAAIpIjRF0N6SfjxRXA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1354396054; i=@resistor.net; bh=5vZ5cD5WvfW4WzmnnDcCU9qJuN/7/FM+isM7lf8oRiw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=NKzEbRAs3f1//e9stDlvJqLbquAqcjWdVc3LS4jLodgjV6lHrMeKqJIWwARJ1qS5L ADO2579IzSyGYfIrQmVG1tqi2vNrgbt1uDplstIvJI9viMDcY+68o28XgNP0W9B/LY gmsvuzbVwqtTzwc0LjbsHu92MJmrOGJh4sVyLo54=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121201123752.09384ef8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 13:06:58 -0800
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
In-Reply-To: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:08:54 -0000

Hi Stephen,
At 12:12 01-12-2012, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
>If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
>an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
>that's fine, it can die.

In Section 1:

   "The idea here is not to save the universe, nor to boil
    any oceans."

It's better to boil an ocean than to kill a fish.  :-)

   "1.  Working group last call (WGLC), IETF last call (IETF-LC) and Area
        Director (AD) review all run in parallel over the same two-week
        period."

You could skip the WGLC as you have the Last Call.

In Section 3:

   "2.  Where there are two or more WG chairs, all need to agree to fast-
        track processing."

That can be rolled into item 1.

Could you ask an AD to sponsor this draft and generate the Last Call?

Regards,
-sm

P.S. Make the draft experimental.  Add a one-year timer.