Re: [rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] what metric replaces page-count?

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
    > The tone of "Time to move on from tired, inaccurate metaphors" smacks of
    > stating a position as fact, and that disagreement means that you are stuck
    > in the dark ages / ab absurdo.

+1

    > I've been using page count as a metric for tracking the amount of document
    > review I've performed, how much I'm reading, etc. Yes, it's not a perfect
    > metric, but it's one I've been using and is "good enough" for letting me
    > know roughly how much I've reviewed this month versus last month, how much
    > I've read in total, etc. I've got a system, and it works *for me*.
    > I really disliked the tone of "Time to move on from..." - I understand that
    > Richard doesn't happen like this metric - but I'm disappointed that,
    > increasingly, if you don't agree with someone in the IETF, the tone pivots
    > to implying that there is something wrong with them, or that they are
    > stupid, or similar...

This is really the origin of my question.
The IESG has used page-count as a metric.

It's interesting to look at documents in different WGs (or for different
protocols), and see how they vary in size.  How much is Protocol, and how
much is Security Consideration?

John Levine's "but IDs still have page count" helps me not at all when
comparing two RFCs.  It this a document I can read over a coffee break, or do
I need to lock-myself in the wifi-free tree-house all afternoon?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

Re: [rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] what metric replaces page-count?

Attachment: signature.asc