Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 10/07/2018 10:32, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
...
> PS: I do not see how we can draw any conclusion from the very informal 
> survey.  We have been lectured, with good reason, in the past about the 
> dangers of drawing conclusions from even carefully formulated and 
> carefully distributed surveys.

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.

On 7/9/18 6:17 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
...
> Based on those observations, I hope it's clear to folks that there is a 
> problem to be solved here..  The survey data, sketchy as they are, also 
> point toward the solution, which is to refine the RFC label to have a 
> much more limited semantic, probably only IETF and possibly only standards.

That's a pretty perfect example of confirmation bias. Sorry, but
even if we accept that there's a problem worth solving, the "data"
don't point to any particular solution.

I hope that as scientists and engineers, we can do better than this.

By the way, the full results are at
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeMoeR0TBWkZNpBKXJN3Am6nUL04Vr4-12T2VgEbiRdBwzngQ/viewanalytics

The last question is interesting.:
"Does an RFC published by the IETF require IETF consensus?"
got 58.8% "no", which is the correct answer. However, this
seems very unlikely as the preferred response from outsiders.
Only insiders know that only some IETF stream RFCs require
IETF consensus. So I don't think the data can reasonably be
assumed to represent the opinion of outsiders.

    Brian