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

Stephen Farrell <> Wed, 05 December 2012 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6E321F896C for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 06:51:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.545
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WL2bRnDdLLXC for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 06:51:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1AF21F8904 for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 06:51:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C081BE53; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:51:21 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5B4ZQefDbODs; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:51:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:8fe:f2f3:f980:9bca] (unknown [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:8fe:f2f3:f980:9bca]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60ADABE3C; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:51:20 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:51:21 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:51:44 -0000


This proposal only kicks in (as an option) after the WG have
done their job, however they choose to do that (within the
IETF process).

Later on, it might be a fine idea to try extend the fast-track
concept so that a WG has a structured way do similar things
but IMO that'd be better done after we get some experience
with the experiment at the point where the WG get broader IETF
review and hand stuff over to the IESG.

So what you're asking about is not within the scope of this
particular 3933 experiment.


On 12/05/2012 02:43 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> I think it is great idea, I hope it does not die, we need fast-tracks,
> without delays, however, giving a fixed time limit for WG feedback and
> WG discussion is important  (suggested 6 months), because discussions
> about running code should not be ignored. The draft seems to not give
> chance to WG to make a formal decision on its adopted work, why you
> put the chair to decide for WG of taking the fast track?
> AB
> ----
> Hi all,
> I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
> If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
> an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
> that's fine, it can die.
> The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't
> be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no
> "official" status whatsoever.
> Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome.
> Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this
> list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible,
> this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list.
> Regards,
> Stephen.
> [1]