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

Melinda Shore <> Sat, 01 December 2012 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAE211E80A5 for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:00:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S29dCYPRg0Bj for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E50A11E8099 for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id uo1so1112391pbc.31 for <>; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 13:00:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FsdBcsbRL3kpzQf6c4YH33JjxuT1ePcO92Xzvyuj/pw=; b=T+igZV/bk6MQV8MD0rC+P/UHZfQHANL093MCCnSv4M/6R8thYItMjvwtTe6m7forAy d46q76PoT3FD0GiLeUH0p3OfZnGRVzpW5PCqSstW1hVyFXRpymEqF5cWEXDqE677bRYP m6451dYF5Do+h7PxKcWCQYi95qT/RiWuOra4I08ScUm5zWMJVIP0xapQaCCmfDLGjDTv MzCQVlotZd0KB+e8LFRLOZTrgDafuCkBJ1fvBBX+5ZwgZ0/7nZDzuqHO0qJZgVMTVN2g K05FEKpEfQ29aX7yXfB30g+NgwBm5tc5HrCZV0X6ehh4vXyT828do7L4+do78CZKI+Th rskQ==
Received: by with SMTP id az7mr13774878pab.69.1354395638806; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 13:00:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spandex.local ( []) by with ESMTPS id ug6sm5249867pbc.4.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 01 Dec 2012 13:00:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:00:36 -0900
From: Melinda Shore <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:00:39 -0000

On 12/1/12 11:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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.

I gather this is one of those "everybody knows" problems, where
"everybody knows" that it takes what's perceived as too long to
get documents through the post-wglc/pre-publication process.  I
can see some value in parallelizing some processes.  I'd really
like to see AD review happen in parallel with working group last
call but I'm not sure that's possible given the already considerable
area direct workload.

There's probably some sort of sympathetic vibe running between
this document and recent discussion of nearly-cooked work being
brought to the IETF for standardization.  I think some sort of
variation on what Stephen's proposing is probably reasonable.
If somebody hasn't already documented how long it takes to get
through the various steps once a document is into wglc, it
would be worthwhile to start taking notes.