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

Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> Wed, 05 December 2012 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <danny@tcb.net>
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 05EA521F8C03 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 20:05:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 cHRdwHaCnyod for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 20:05:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.friendswithtools.org (unknown [64.78.239.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0D421F8BFF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 20:05:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dspam (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C37F2468 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 04:05:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.17.67.35] (unknown [76.8.75.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BEEB12464; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 21:05:31 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVBcRX6WM3bCV_MFr5F08j3z8M0dn7Mg20ZR2x+Yfn8xNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:05:30 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6A38293F-E79C-49E6-8D3D-71F92288E6AF@tcb.net>
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie> <50BC401C.8020101@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <50BC86B7.1010706@gmail.com> <1354545525.11916.744.camel@mightyatom> <50BD8E60.5030206@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <m2r4n6f28s.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAC4RtVBcRX6WM3bCV_MFr5F08j3z8M0dn7Mg20ZR2x+Yfn8xNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent
X-DSPAM-Processed: Tue Dec 4 21:05:32 2012
X-DSPAM-Confidence: 1.0000
X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 98689409 chance of being spam
X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0023
X-DSPAM-Signature: 50bec80c199631316099132
X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, that+#+#+mean, 0.40000, code+#+#+#+such, 0.40000, our+#+#+slogan, 0.40000, lend+such, 0.40000, Real+#+#+#+does, 0.40000, Subject*Idea+#+#+process, 0.40000, an+extra, 0.40000, getting+#+#+#+running, 0.40000, just+#+#+#+it, 0.40000, doesn't+#+#+#+see, 0.40000, meetings+#+#+#+danny, 0.40000, runs+It, 0.40000, certainly+#+whether, 0.40000, if+#+#+the, 0.40000, Subject*for+#+#+#+to, 0.40000, where+#+getting, 0.40000, code+#+#+nice, 0.40000, but+#+#+in, 0.40000, we+#+see, 0.40000, 4+#+at, 0.40000, doesn't+mean, 0.40000, almost+#+#+#+we, 0.40000, is+that, 0.40000, code+#+not, 0.40000, you're+#+#+consultancy, 0.40000, doesn't+#+simply, 0.40000, draft+get, 0.40000
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 04:05:33 -0000

On Dec 4, 2012, at 9:46 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:

> 
> But the point of "running code" in our nice, catchy slogan, is that
> "running" doesn't mean simply that it runs.  It means that it's
> actually *in use*, possibly for real, but at least in a test lab where
> it's getting real use.  *Real* running code probably does lend such
> confidence.  Code that's just been written because it helps your draft
> get an extra tick mark in a box almost certainly doesn't, whether we
> can see and understand the source code or not.

But Barry - if you're in the consultancy business and wear "running code and run away" shirts to IETF meetings; well. perspectives diverge...

-danny