Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 01 July 2008 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433DA3A6BEE; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FD53A67A5 for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.322
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U5kmsDYEEe7p for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23553A6B06 for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k34so57740wah.25 for <>; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Fr5V2hJ3TaQ7n4s6ZxoyYliGrLCiruDHhOvxAzvkC/s=; b=bCQRKw/IcUVWWszSfLfl8vBBcbMUM3fChuYZsOWMbrJdc1FVVMcCZxRhB8wntAN/x5 +sOaia0aycQbch6uoJqksC2BYrISJQ5wuanAGts8PpGZp3N3rlTGcUzhzBqiPuddKPy9 hTvDwIeGWP3MN5ZTm6uobjdmYgzb7zuGSBpHI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=NaqQzuDGu3h6peHZEv0GSOSe9G3+TjYFdY4gyX9DCzo0FMYwi0L41sN/doyHAs9aBU 71uB46BWGwPcjUI2NEfW8/nr2Jvg1xZn2xg4Qa3sMWdq+CnHvPFgT8NxukBP++qpeiHC ec1BMhJM6mB8LQtpSYNEW3sweEyHm3Lz0h9hA=
Received: by with SMTP id v3mr6292675wai.218.1214949492241; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id v35sm11074628wah.12.2008. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:58:02 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <p06240604c49047431468@[]> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2008-07-02 09:07, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Of course, we also get complaints whenever anyone raises an issue
> without providing text.  So, by a strict reading of the argument, the AD
> is hanged if he provides text (directing the working group) and hanged
> if he does not provide text (you didn't make clear what your problem is,
> and how to fix it.)

There is, I think a big difference between an AD writing

(a) "Here is the fix for my problem"
(b) "Here is my proposal for one way to fix this issue; there may of
course be other ways to do so, so please let me know what the WG
prefers to do."

But that takes time to type in, and an overloaded AD (or reviewer)
will be very tempted just to write "Suggested fix:".

Maybe we should assign specific (b) semantics to SUGGESTION and
use that as shorthand?

Ietf mailing list