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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 02 December 2012 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 AD2B921F8477 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 07:00:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 PsCuvJ--DtTP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 07:00:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2596421F8457 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 07:00:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590D7BE38; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:00:37 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8DWmnaZPkpyP; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:00:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.3] (unknown [86.46.31.59]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABC6BBE36; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 15:00:36 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <50BB6D0F.9010007@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 15:00:31 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
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>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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 15:00:59 -0000

On 12/01/2012 11:51 PM, 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.  

Well, I think its an ok reason for not fully answering Dave's
question in this case, given the latitude offered by RFC 3933.
Tactical reticence like this would not be a reason to adopt
anything, I agree.

> 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.

Great.
S.

> 
> Melinda
> 
>