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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 03 December 2012 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 6389021F897C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:53:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.468
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, 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 8c51YatzLsk0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:53:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FA521F8972 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:53:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20052BE3C; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:53:07 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rbZ8Ndoye54o; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:53:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.3] (unknown [86.44.79.68]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 67538BE36; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:53:06 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <50BD2D52.2030105@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:53:06 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie> <50BCD637.3030009@acm.org> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1212031446410.7002@egate.xpasc.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1212031446410.7002@egate.xpasc.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 22:53:30 -0000

On 12/03/2012 10:50 PM, David Morris wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2012, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> 
> 
>> I support this idea, but I think that free software should also be considered
>> as part of this experiment (free software and open source are not synonymous).
>>  Using the acronym FOSS and defining it as Free or Open Source Software in the
>> document would achieve this.
> 
> By my understanding free is not applicable in that software can be free 
> without the source being available. The key in my mind to the open source
> sugestion is the ability of others to examine the actual code for coverage
> of edge concerns or whatever. Open source is available today under many
> license agreements. Free is not a requirement to achieve the review
> objective.

Folks, can we *please* not rat-hole on this? If the proposal gets to
an IETF LC, then I'll make sure to try find some wording that works for
folks who've expressed divergent opinions on the topic before the
start of IETF LC. So if you care about this, I'd ask that you wait for
an IETF LC before diving in, since a) it doesn't matter until then and
b) I promise, I'll try get some wording that works for all before then.

Thanks,
Stephen.