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

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Sun, 02 December 2012 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.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 35EDE21E8095 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 18:19:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.138
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.138 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.461, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, 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 Efe9DVZMyZWj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 18:19:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.catinthebox.net (ntbbs.santronics.com [208.247.131.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555C521E808C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 18:19:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1102; t=1354414737; h=Received:Received: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject: List-ID; bh=pEOm2yjvk2yCtEjBIxemycHWKRE=; b=g16XA3YQBl6B+h63Px1g oGqs4TN7Xn6Mu5E1mOSZVkdexm0K4u9u3W6OtsYPxS7cV9bics5iOquYGphs2crX szFQ6ZQuOSZY+woAFMzZbPvr0sR8K2xPWQGgjduy+pz8kt89ATsuYDYr5+T0x7FG 46aOUs4tPxj9lpuKHX4wulE=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:18:57 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from opensite.winserver.com ([208.247.131.23]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 1846501260.8610.3472; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:18:57 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1102; t=1354414369; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=QNQ8DV1 zAoUi/WVMVZhxSu5Vn1Zn4gZW2GzODRyPhn8=; b=MjETJEGAOe05EqDMSBQp2pm 9DYgYYx9q7r6UoMqfd1WWIpOwMCxiG1XXBBR5pvdmEBEVOTg+H6eGfpMHc2Fz9Jn ogN9TjsXdni8dw1E4WOA3Q2ENMPWHTnpzgyx9IZPzUZ4aRTq1bNgXYa4LSwtAA3g CjmYCnILOXz6Cme1T24A=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:12:49 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([99.3.147.93]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 2445232725.10.5756; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:12:48 -0500
Message-ID: <50BABAA9.9000900@isdg.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:19:21 -0500
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie> <50BA6A45.2000409@dcrocker.net> <50BA6FF4.4030706@gmail.com> <50BA8106.6050503@dcrocker.net> <50BA8B03.7070002@cs.tcd.ie> <50BA8F36.9070501@dcrocker.net> <50BA90ED.9000202@cs.tcd.ie> <50BA981B.9060505@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <50BA981B.9060505@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 02:19:08 -0000

Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 12/1/12 2:21 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> My reluctance to get into this is based on an opinion that process
>> change proposals with more words attached tend to just not happen,
>> so fewer words is better.
> 
> I think that's actually a pretty terrible reason.  The goal is
> not to get the proposal through, the goal is to improve
> something.  That said, while I don't like change just for the
> sake of change I think that change for the sake of betterment is
> a very good thing indeed.  The main thing is that I've been trying
> to figure out where the harm would be here and I haven't been
> able to identify anything substantive.  I'd be good with giving
> this a limited run and seeing how it goes.

I would be more comfortable with the proposal if its applied only to 
new protocols, ideas, methods, etc.  The conflicts come when applying 
it to established standards, methods or BIS work.  While its possible 
to fast track the obvious, where there is potential issues, the 
proposal needs to be sensitive to fast tracking problematic issues.

-- 
HLS