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

Stewart Bryant <> Mon, 03 December 2012 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B3B221F86C7 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 00:07:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rgF8VfGS9KGA for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 00:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1676621F86CE for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 00:06:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1600; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1354522020; x=1355731620; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WiPd+Y78MZccAwRjpqBnxdQ6Ua/bIomCN3gqBoSCecU=; b=fxRhCUDJ10r30CdnKq/KU4XPzzR1VraRIyUVGAXDHYcS5gKn66ybmq6i bUa32+nFx8gKWN6dVUdSCO6WCyztzhsAD3hk0YkR1bb17MZwaZwv/7fJ0 n40m4y66ECq6m57qW43onh97/fnp4MTPv6g61mt0VMzCiEE80h2IwJljz 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6914"; a="10096588"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2012 08:06:58 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qB386w69019964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:06:58 GMT
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id qB386tuR024358; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:06:56 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:06:56 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF-Discussion <>
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:07:01 -0000

On 01/12/2012 20:12, 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.
> Regards,
> Stephen.
> [1]
I find this a worrying proposal.

In the just-in-time world that we live in, too much of the review is 
already tail driven. Reducing the time that people have to notice that a 
doc is up for final review and then clear enough time in their calendar 
against a myriad of other tasks makes it more likely that the quality of 
review will diminish and hence the quality of our documents will diminish.

I would hate for us to act like an SDO that regards publication 
milestones as crucial and ship the draft regardless of the state of the 
technical design.

I would also note that sometimes it just takes time during review to 
mull over the full implications of the design and to surface the issues. 
With the current scheme if you miss a problem in WGLC, you can raise it 
during IETF LC.

- Stewart