Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETFand IESG trends)

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> Wed, 25 June 2008 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE223A67CC; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851453A67CC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.338
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
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 Q-V-8CxjuedF for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52583A6767 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s73602 (cpe-72-190-0-23.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.0.23]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1KBcuW21LH-00006y; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:52:19 -0400
Message-ID: <046501c8d70d$d47d7e80$6501a8c0@china.huawei.com>
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
References: <20080624203548.D3A8D3A67FD@core3.amsl.com> <48622DEB.7060403@piuha.net> <486267E0.8080704@qualcomm.com><48628ED6.1000800@piuha.net> <4862BB84.4070401@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETFand IESG trends)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:52:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18HTm0bDGjQGNqArbnR82XQqsHP1iy5ks3xAmA 4Hbf6Qpy6N4D9gwFjkkEOzVBGzxiXVkuVWscpsxQvHdnFG58Vm C0dhC6GDFMDriWDb9Bg2KVEy3kNZ/ntop1rDR6otvY=
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> And if we see fluctuation in
> these delays, and fluctuation in the amount of active intervention
> by the ADs, it does not follow that the IESG is to blame. Maybe
> there are external factors, maybe there are WGs that are forgetting
> the IETF's mission, maybe our technology is getting harder and
> more complex. So I'm very dubious about using either quantitative
> *or* qualitative observations to point the finger at the IESG, or
> at process issues in general, without digging much deeper.

I'm remembering conversations with Allison and some other Proto types where 
Allison made the point that the tracker stages didn't actually map onto who 
held the token very cleanly - I'd agree with Brian's point here.

Thanks,

Spencer 


_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf