Re: Hum theatre

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 07 November 2013 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 F2EF311E823C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 05:59:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MIFbb7sDZbYh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 05:59:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5391F11E819C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 05:59:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.180] (d23-16-52-16.bchsia.telus.net [23.16.52.16] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rA7DxQlT007834 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 05:59:30 -0800
Message-ID: <527B9CA5.105@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 05:59:01 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Hum theatre
References: <527AF986.4090504@dcrocker.net> <CAHBU6iuDXQok_QRZe7BL__Vmkn447vUCSViDgrVkaedKAHcnfw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iuDXQok_QRZe7BL__Vmkn447vUCSViDgrVkaedKAHcnfw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Thu, 07 Nov 2013 05:59:30 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:59:35 -0000

> You’re entitled to your opinion, but I entirely disagree.

I was not offering an opinion.

Survey methodology is an arcane and difficult technical specialty with a 
long, colorful and very problematic history.  Research on its challenges 
is extensive and consistent. By way of a brief example, here's something 
from the survey professionals at Pew:

 
http://www.people-press.org/methodology/questionnaire-design/question-wording/



 > I sense a fair degree of process omphaloskepsis here.

To the extent that it does not matter whether questions are asked 
ambiguously, responses are interpreted inconsistently and results used 
inappropriately, yes, I suppose these concerns represent idle reflection.

To the extent that we care whether the IETF really does provide an 
environment that supports careful, meaningful consideration of issues, 
encourages the inclusion of differing opinions, and is judicious in its 
interpretation of comments, it is quite basic to the nature of the IETF.

The point behind my including a single, alternative question at the end 
was to note that indulging in the exercise as theatre would have been 
fine if it hadn't purported to do more than that. From many of the 
comments that have been posted, it's quite clear that many folk think it 
was more than a closing bit of theatre.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net