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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 02 December 2012 14:48 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 1B92121F87B1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 06:48:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, 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 oMcZavuziQjb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 06:48:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F80D21F86E4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 06:48:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1251BE38; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 14:48:20 +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 695SzV+CNl8i; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 14:48:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.3] (unknown [86.46.31.59]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 250CBBE36; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 14:48:20 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <50BB6A33.3000205@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 14:48:19 +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: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie> <CAC4RtVD0x3JsPR8qJ1BbVytU-yL96z-Sbr5hW9GetnEX-U3FQQ@mail.gmail.com> <50BA8D01.1050508@cs.tcd.ie> <CALaySJ+zoTJB_A9-ihZomYUggZ=_sYnNC0i651E4hszePi08Yw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+zoTJB_A9-ihZomYUggZ=_sYnNC0i651E4hszePi08Yw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 14:48:47 -0000

Hiya,

On 12/02/2012 12:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> > I, and I believe lots of us, do want to encourage running code
>> > more than now. This is one attempt to help with that. Why not
>> > try it and see?

> Because as a "reward" for claiming to have running code, I think it's
> a terrible idea.  As a way of handling the process for documents where
> it makes sense to, I think it's fine.  

I don't get that distinction to be honest. Maybe we interpret the
word reward differently here. I'm using it with only positive
connotations but the scare quotes above seem to imply you're not.

> If you want the criteria for
> your WGs to be "You have to have running code," knock yourself out.
> Any other ADs who want to do it that way can join you.  If you want to
> codify that for everyone, 

I do. I want this to be something where WG chairs can take the
initiative (not ADs) and where IETF participants can hassle their
WG chairs to use this. So I don't want it to be an AD-driven
thing really.

> I think you need to do a lot more in the
> line of criteria for adequate implementations, and so on.  

Fair enough. Be interested in more on that.

> If I spend
> half a day knocking out some crappy untested code, is that good
> enough?  If not, how much testing does it need?  I'm pretty sure we
> don't want to go there.

Perhaps. As of now, I'm just saying that the WG chairs (all of 'em)
and the responsible AD need to accept that the code is ok for the
purpose. I think I can argue that that's enough, but would welcome
better ideas there or ideas about things they should take into
account that'd be worth including here.

Cheers,
S.