Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

All,

>> It's worse than that. The survey was hastily designed and included
>> at least one ad hominem entry, and I think anyone with experience
>> of surveys and their analysis would simply junk the results. See
>> below for something more concrete on that.
>
> I'll admit it was hastily conceived; the idea came to me as I was
> composing my message to the list on Friday.  I won't admit it's 
> ad-hominem -- it's simply fact that the process entitles Adrian 
> can approve RFCs as he likes.

I can accept that it was not intentionally an attack on me or an attempt to divert the argument from the real issues by focusing on me, and I have spoken with Richard about it privately. Nevertheless, if it was not carefully formulated and it definitely used my name rather than my role as Independent Submissions Editor. I suspect that, despite it being in the public domain that I am the ISE, it is not public knowledge. Thus, if the responders truly knew little of the IETF (as requested in the preamble) they should have had no idea who I am or why my name was listed. Had the question used "Independent Submissions Editor" instead, the answers might have been different.

But who cares? Twitter is a wild park where idiots play. I am not offended by anything that is said there, nor do I take seriously any "results" of surveys or opinion storms that happen there. I may draw my own conclusions about those who pay too much attention to Twitter, but that is between me and my analyst.

> But in the real world, when you're trying to make a decision, you either
> work with dirty data or you collect better data.  I don't see anyone here
> doing any better survey work, so throwing out what data we have seems
> counterproductive.

Ah, "the real world". What are you trying to say, Richard? Is Twitter the real world? Does Brian not live in the real world? 

May I suggest that it does not help advance the discussion in any way to proceed like this? I shall not be going to the pub tonight to ask three drunks, the barmaid, and the landlord's dog. That would give us some more data, but it, too, would have no value.

Adrian (Finding it hard to keep separate my personal opinions and my role as ISE when others confuse them, but still attempting to respond from this address as an individual participant in the IETF.)