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

Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Mon, 03 December 2012 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
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 1E9B621F8639 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:15:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 qtXwuDUJHWna for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:15:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from b.painless.aa.net.uk (b.painless.aa.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912C521F846B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:15:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mightyatom.folly.org.uk ([81.187.254.250]) by b.painless.aa.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>) id 1TfXk1-0006nd-Qt; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:15:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVC1VhJjhdPNuzoE+BQcm-krm6=RLSxxsMp56GDVa3csnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie> <50BC401C.8020101@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <50BC86B7.1010706@gmail.com> <1354545525.11916.744.camel@mightyatom> <CAC4RtVC1VhJjhdPNuzoE+BQcm-krm6=RLSxxsMp56GDVa3csnw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:15:38 +0000
Message-Id: <1354547738.11916.762.camel@mightyatom>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:15:33 -0000

Barry responded...

On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 09:50 -0500, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Elwyn says...
> 
> > However, I don't think that a short last call cycle need necessarily
> > compromise cross-area review. There has always been the possibility for
> > authors or wg chairs to request a early gen-art review with a view to
> > checking out whether something is in good shape cross-area and for
> > non-specialists.  This facility is not much used (I think I have done 3
> > in 8 years on the gen-art team) but it is there, and I guess the team
> > could cope with a few more since it doesn't drastically alter the total
> > workload. So it would be entirely possible for a draft that might be
> > fast-tracked to get some early review.
> 
> Do you really think it's likely that a chair who's trying to
> fast-track a document will likely go out asking for early GenART,
> SecDir, AppDir, and OpsDir reviews?
> 
A few do already.  But seriously, if the wg chair(s) actually have an
interest in the technology and feel there is a valid reason for getting
something decent out into the world quickly then they could well be
motivated to do just that.  If our wg chairs are really just
bureaucratic process minders then it's time we found some different
ones, but I don't think they are. Maybe this is just a plea for a bit
more parallel processing and a few less silos.

/Elwyn