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

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mon, 03 December 2012 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.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 6527621F8538 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:19:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, 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 EaUh3y4On6cL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31FE21F84D9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:19:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A082CC48; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 23:19:05 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2qzfQxnfg4PQ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 23:19:04 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5686F2CC43; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 23:19:04 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <50BD1747.9040904@piuha.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:19:03 +0200
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie> <50BC5DA0.2030506@cisco.com> <50BC839A.1070503@cs.tcd.ie> <CAC4RtVBr_0x6NcKJ4OQO=GH4msuXxZ1W_ECW57-3FZAirWTzmw@mail.gmail.com> <50BCB71F.4060205@cs.tcd.ie> <CAC4RtVCg3w7Wtuau7dykC5QKCk9mg7Sz0UCeJ26VG1WB_ut7HQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCg3w7Wtuau7dykC5QKCk9mg7Sz0UCeJ26VG1WB_ut7HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF-Discussion <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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:19:06 -0000

Barry,

> As I've said on the IESG list, I think this can
> be far better done with an IESG statement that says that
> implementation, testing, and deployment should be considered as we
> (the community and the IESG) evaluate documents.  Then we just make
> sure we facilitate the process instead of getting in the way of it.

+1

Jari