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

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Sat, 01 December 2012 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.com>
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 3707421F8B6E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:22:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.367
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 Gv1pwsVN8YUf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ACF621F8B6A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.147]) by smtp.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qB1LM2SJ010776; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 23:22:05 +0200
X-CheckPoint: {50BA74E2-2-1B221DC2-2FFFF}
Received: from IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.2.14]) by IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.147]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 23:21:58 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: "<dcrocker@bbiw.net>" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
Thread-Topic: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
Thread-Index: AQHN0ABLDtHjWJVnsECZVQw96auh/5gERYOAgAAMu4A=
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 21:21:56 +0000
Message-ID: <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC30277210EDCF0BA@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com>
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie> <50BA6A45.2000409@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <50BA6A45.2000409@dcrocker.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.31.21.250]
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <3355227CC4A40243B6C533B3B35BF6FA@ad.checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IETF-Discussion <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: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:22:25 -0000

On Dec 1, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> 
> What actual problem is this trying to solve?  I see the reference to a 'reward', but wasn't aware that there is a perceived problem needing incentive to solve.
> 

I think the problem is in the subject line. Documents go through working groups and the IETF proposing standards that have never been implemented, and may never be implemented.

Why do they bother?  Maybe it looked like a good idea at the time. Maybe they want an RFC hoping to drive adoption. Maybe the want an RFC for their personal vanity, or to augment their LinkedIn profile.

Regardless of the reason, I agree that the IETF's resources are better spent on stuff that will make it into running code. Not sure this is the right incentive, though. Waiting two more months, and probably making one extra revision to the document seems to be a lower investment than actually implementing (incentives only apply to people who would otherwise not implement their proposal)

Yoav