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

Barry Leiba <> Sun, 02 December 2012 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E5B21E80A0 for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 16:27:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, 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 0NS99k2EUdPl for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 16:27:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C8121E8095 for <>; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 16:27:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id fw7so885255vcb.31 for <>; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:27:43 -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=nZA9QiwNo9tg/KRms6BfJr5Ot68yy9dkTjN/RJk8IUY=; b=iGnXbWVO0P3W47SpQT70eb8wrz596HKc/7AZ+aX53chA4RvZAdCkABEdnpgjIA6Xg+ YyaQvVKeRrCQDHGAirCi2vjYiNcG0e6nR7UC3SNcL6q1Cn1gDFtz/GPrfQq729ZLkL7q 5jtDqhe8Ya5tHRCt3VHIIVXfPZ1JcEJ7uhHI4GABJ2HRzB1ZUICRPFIO11hHYp8JT+ah M477DF/Y5ShhLrxobIcrtdFjh0aCUQBiqBTJvTeucq/9PfxAJniA3jp+AIyWSljVomf6 k0sEb2GATQRXGfF5rTYcltp67NURMPK6JmEs4XNR51zrj7EzE9fWlRbxGrkjmnddA4wE aANA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id s5mr4983465vcv.23.1354408062118; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 16:27:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:27:41 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: mPx5sJ5yAh4wZdESMOYVG5njbsY
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
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: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 00:27:44 -0000

>> I, and I believe lots of us, do want to encourage running code
>> more than now. This is one attempt to help with that. Why not
>> try it and see?
> Because as a "reward" for claiming to have running code, I think it's
> a terrible idea.  As a way of handling the process for documents where
> it makes sense to, I think it's fine.  If you want the criteria for
> your WGs to be "You have to have running code," knock yourself out.

Oh, and I did forget one other thing I'd meant to say:
What, actually is the experiment?  It seems to me the experiment is to
see if this actually encourages more "running code", which means that
to have a meaningful experiment you'll need to be able to compare how
many protocol documents represent running code (for some definition of
that) *today*, and then look at the same thing again after we've been
doing this for a while.

Do you have any baseline measurements?