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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 01 December 2012 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 8A50321F85B1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:36:37 -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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Adppy21nVRnS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:36:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39EE21F8570 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:36:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (adsl-67-127-190-125.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.190.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qB1KaTYc010470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:36:29 -0800
Message-ID: <50BA6A45.2000409@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:36:21 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Cc: IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 20:36:37 -0000

On 12/1/2012 12:12 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> 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.
>
> The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't
> be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no
> "official" status whatsoever.
>
> Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome.
> Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this
> list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible,
> this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list.


What actual problem is this trying to solve?  I see the reference to a 
'reward', but wasn't aware that there is a perceived problem needing 
incentive to solve.

In additional, the incentive you are proposing seems to be getting to 
Proposed perhaps a month or so quicker?  It's difficult to see that as 
being sufficient incentive for creating implementations that would not 
otherwise we created.

The tradeoff is, of course, less time for final review.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net