Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D63313118A for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:05:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qlmNaF0Ae8JV for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x234.google.com (mail-vk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCA97130E5D for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l143-v6so6005444vke.1 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:05:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IAJWSCeNIeMFw+CXXQzWsAYKkQu0kBfLjcRJ9OEMQwU=; b=h38JEl0yZfvbItJPDNrslCtF0VU5JCxn1CHr1n/f2f8o65nAFpE0KgdTyoIoQrAOk4 9S5EY7rOnXv3W+bZ+jYm6YDxQBUIrI5Yn2B0GyGp7yXEjmIeOvOWmlEteW0ih7aEM6qc vxSnQXNDnhNbMHxkyVN38kRsNbIofZXkzcYgU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IAJWSCeNIeMFw+CXXQzWsAYKkQu0kBfLjcRJ9OEMQwU=; b=qklg4XFFBQKW0NRQeFLSGXcjHjLGNLhZ+w79nQVVo/0zr1WggPMbSRCz+1v/ptjN2S xEH+ut4toF5nM1xsfhdbOFWKoCG95Sw03U8Rl8sRu2FC/7PzUdx380T9m2jU/r+5wVRp iLJzmSmcRMMBt+ITDNR66686Q4n8CLCCzvssGs0Raa8kx7hVXf4eszgQQzTHPcehqVer Yra8MDhmT3GfrUeyOqLnPovt0cmv4wjZCcXvR5mZlpZjOUgc2XveAkOpMDK8tgMELAoh GoqmqYYylR98dCragH/omclwF68eqiH7KweCbL48IVoe1qJvLbwWjUsvgqcu7MKaLyvv U5YQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlECPJAEXKkr6zl7n5ClKbA6EKbrq/sVmtG6dMo7xg6haEo/ilX6 yMWzimxCGVj16mGmnPZC52vV+/qlHYYGAF/gPgLLtg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpc+FheoUJ+cx6v1V8M5I1P4quJdjgYDyeLK0lqXixNr+3DhU8Mc0/1Iyy8Ao56AnjbqBcX/4eFAgMRtEfVCFZg= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:5ec1:: with SMTP id s184-v6mr300163vkb.94.1531260353400; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:05:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <639B8766-A030-490D-8431-C3F9F3EAFCB4@gmail.com> <8B48E5E5-90DC-423F-83C7-9B51A853A1A8@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8B48E5E5-90DC-423F-83C7-9B51A853A1A8@gmail.com> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:05:41 -0400 Message-ID: To: Bob Hinden Cc: Richard Barnes , "Joel M. Halpern" , rfcplusplus@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006c689d0570ac55a5" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 22:05:57 -0000 --0000000000006c689d0570ac55a5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:51 PM Bob Hinden wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:11 PM Bob Hinden wrote: > >> Richard, >> >> On Jul 10, 2018, at 7:21 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:32 PM Joel M. Halpern >> wrote: >> >>> This formulation assumes that change does not have a cost. It does. I >>> agree that not changing has some cost. However, absent indication that >>> the changes will actually address the claimed problem... >> >> >> People are presenting indications. Attach what caveats you need to my >> little study; it's still real data from a relevant population. Do you h= ave >> better data? >> >> >> >> When I saw the survey, after I filled it in, I noticed that I could do i= t >> again. There didn=E2=80=99t appear to be a mechanism to keep anyone from= taking it >> multiple times. Based on this, I don=E2=80=99t think one can draw any = conclusions. >> > > Do you ever use telemetry from fielded products? How do you know your > competitors aren't feeding you bad data? > > > You point is? That your flawed survey is OK because there are other > flawed surveys? > > I have a hard time seeing any survey research design that would convince this group, and I think that Richard's survey is a non-trivial effort to get some granted ugly data. As Richard pointed out, I guess I'm the noob here on the list, having been attending IETFs since IETF 89 in London, about 4.5 years ago. I must admit I still find so much of IETF a bit baffling... now that I'm approaching my IETF adolescence, I'm starting to understand why certain things are the way they are at IETF, and I'm thankful that it does what it does well and thoroughly. (I've even chipped in on the IASA 2.0 effort to help adapt IETF's administrative structure for the future.) However, the document series still baffles me, and I know a lot of folks that squint at IETF and don't understand any of the distinctions we do (I would have answered the survey question as there being only 4 document series). Alissa had the unenviable task at one point of sitting me down and telling me the difference between and ID and RFC, even after I had thoroughly read the Tao and been to a couple IETFs. (The ID we've been working on for a while I even named (incorrectly) when setting up a github repository as an RFC: https://github.com/josephlhall/rfc-censorship-tech ). I'll throw my hat in and say I'd like to see data, qualitative or quantitative. I'm a mixed methods researcher and have experience in both. I know a number of us have had enough informal discussions with "liminal" IETF participants that there is enough confusion here to explore doing something about it. That may not warrant an immediate document identifier experiment, but I think we could settle on some sort of research design that would provide essentially something like "running code" we could work with. cheers, Joe --=20 Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org] 1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497 e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871 --0000000000006c689d0570ac55a5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue= , Jul 10, 2018 at 5:51 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Richard Barne= s <rlb@ipv.sx> wr= ote:



On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:11 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
Richard,

On Jul 10, 2018, at= 7:21 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:


On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:32 PM= Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
This formulation assumes that change does not have a cost.=C2=A0 It d= oes.=C2=A0 I
agree that not changing has some cost.=C2=A0 However, absent indication tha= t
the changes will actually address the claimed problem...
<= br>
People are presenting indications.=C2=A0 Attach what caveats = you need to my little study; it's still real data from a relevant popul= ation.=C2=A0 Do you have better data?


When I saw the survey, after I filled it i= n, I noticed that I could do it again. There didn=E2=80=99t appear to be a = mechanism to keep anyone from taking it multiple times. =C2=A0 Based on thi= s, I don=E2=80=99t think one can draw any conclusions.

Do you ever use telemetry from fielded produc= ts?=C2=A0 How do you know your competitors aren't feeding you bad data?=

You point is?=C2=A0 Tha= t your flawed survey is OK because there are other flawed surveys?

I have a hard time seeing any surve= y research design that would convince this group, and I think that Richard&= #39;s survey is a non-trivial effort to get some granted ugly data.

As Richard pointed out, I guess I'm the noob here on = the list, having been attending IETFs since IETF 89 in London, about 4.5 ye= ars ago. I must admit I still find so much of IETF a bit baffling... now th= at I'm approaching my IETF adolescence, I'm starting to understand = why certain things are the way they are at IETF, and I'm thankful that = it does what it does well and thoroughly. (I've even chipped in on the = IASA 2.0 effort to help adapt IETF's administrative structure for the f= uture.)

However, the document series still baffles= me, and I know a lot of folks that squint at IETF and don't understand= any of the distinctions we do (I would have answered the survey question a= s there being only 4 document series). Alissa had the unenviable task at on= e point of sitting me down and telling me the difference between and ID and= RFC, even after I had thoroughly read the Tao and been to a couple IETFs. = (The ID we've been working on for a while I even named (incorrectly) wh= en setting up a github repository as an RFC: https://github.com/josephlhall/rfc-censors= hip-tech ).

I'll throw my hat in and say I= 'd like to see data, qualitative or quantitative. I'm a mixed metho= ds researcher and have experience in both. I know a number of us have had e= nough informal discussions with "liminal" IETF participants that = there is enough confusion here to explore doing something about it. That ma= y not warrant an immediate document identifier experiment, but I think we c= ould settle on some sort of research design that would provide essentially = something like "running code" we could work with. cheers, Joe
=
=C2=A0
--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center= for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 200= 05-3497
e: joe@cdt.org<= /a>, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9= F6D DBD3 4B10 =C2=A01607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

--0000000000006c689d0570ac55a5--