Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

Behcet,

>   So you are backing your cochair's decision to select the draft that
> received 72 marks while all other drafts received 90 or so marks. This
> means that the criteria was to select the worst draft as the WG draft.
> Since this was the case of course the worst draft  people would need
> other drafts in order to get something that makes sense.

There are two invalid assumptions here which might be
clarified by a more careful reading of
the text and email I sent out yesterday:

1) That I made the decision to select the WG draft. The decision
was joint between Pat and I, with approval of Allison as
the text I sent out yesterday explained.

2) That the rating system consisted of absolute numbers, like the
the price of groceries or something, that one could simply add up
and come up with a score. In fact, as I mentioned in my email yesterday,
the rating system was something I cooked up to let us
compare the drafts *on individual requirements*. It failed
miserably, because people kept making assumptions, like
the above, that the numbers were some absolute value that
could simply be added together to determine the result.
In retrospect, this is a natural assumption I suppose, but
it certainly was not how we performed the analysis. Perhaps
I need to add some text to the assessment draft explaining this.

>    The catch here is how to get the other draft people to agree on
this
> impossible task. This is the dilemma we are facing presently. That's
why
> the pleas are being written, and even some people are being forced.
>   My simple logic says this is impossible. If it is the WG chairship
to
> try to achieve the impossible, please continue to try it, you won't
get
> anywhere!
>
>

I'll let this go uncommented, since I don't understand the point.

            jak

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby