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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 12/1/2012 1:00 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> 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.


Yes.  Longstanding opinion held by many folk.  Might even be valid.

The problem is a failure to look carefully at wg lifecycle and consider 
where meaningful -- as opposed to 'appealing' -- improvements can be made.

At a minimum, any proposal for change should be expected to justify the 
specific problem it is claiming to solve -- that is, to establish the 
context that makes clear the problem is real and serious -- and that the 
proposed solution is also likely to have meaningful benefit.

I share the frustration about lengthy standardization, and particularly 
with delays at the end.  And certainly there is nothing wrong with 
adding parallelism where it makes sense.

However absent a consideration of the lifecycle, the current proposal is 
a random point change, quite possibly an example of looking for lost 
keys under a lamppost because that's where it's easiest to see.


> 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.

rumblings of free-floating dis-ease, perhaps.  but are they really related?


> 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.

If a wg takes 2 years to get into wglc, a difference of a month doesn't 
matter, does it?  That's why I mean about total lifecycle.  Otherwise 
we're committing the classic system engineering error of inappropriate 
local optimization.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net