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

Barry Leiba <> Mon, 03 December 2012 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA4121F87F1 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:20:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.975
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.975 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id drzEf22cg+B2 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE5621F87EF for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id fw7so2179074vcb.31 for <>; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:20:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eqWetYtQ+WNR3PKn9aqohgpKxI88QZgaLx+4i9vzr38=; b=qlPmXjg/VnH9fmkEPq105XU3R8OZVm30pxoOrT6lvKX271wrKpTVggSPlfGRBEC2Nd +iRhxJV7udoWZMb3IEg2vCuKB3vLKrZR1t6r6Wpvc8E61eLBya5EItex+D+Iz5O80hFY sVnEjJeOdq0pK8qC1qDYGu8opcud8EPfdQ9AybNzwRC+blCgmTQ6d6nAs7FduQo1TUiz 8Q7PgxQGyAttJiaAffCLqoYzHg1izObyev9a3+OeH8y1KGJTaWzp0Z/oLSZJvlxT5n8B 5blpv/fgc6ykGn0oqKq/ReiP07o1TDwN4om5ubVCxIochhgCiqFF22Um55Tbd+bGAdh4 OtBw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id m4mr8757034vca.43.1354548040062; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:20:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1354547738.11916.762.camel@mightyatom>
References: <> <> <> <1354545525.11916.744.camel@mightyatom> <> <1354547738.11916.762.camel@mightyatom>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:20:39 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3FIfL5zbLXSRdOOdbxr0zL_mIjY
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Elwyn Davies <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: IETF-Discussion <>
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:20:42 -0000

>> 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.

I agree.  I'm concerned that when the focus is on "fast-track", such
that someone is trying to trim a few weeks off a many-month process,
this could be even less likely.  But this is speculation; I have no

> 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.

I don't think they are either, and I absolutely agree that we should
do more parallel processing and not put serial process in the way of
document handling.  That's never been at issue for me.