Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, April 23, 2012 10:26:54 AM Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> No hat.
> 
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:02:55AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Facts are not bias.  Wanting to sweep them under the rug is bias.  What I
> > am asking for is the exact opposite of bias.
> 
> This doesn't respond to Murray's question of relevance.
> 
> It might be that there were a large number of people unwittingly
> pulled into an experiment when the publication decisions were made.
> That does not help us in any way to determine the relative uptake of
> the different technologies.
> 
> The document is about the results of the experiment, to the extent
> there was one, and not about the conditions of the experiment as such.
> Quite frankly, if we had to do an evaluation of this as an experiment,
> we would have to criticise the experimental design in many ways, and
> the accidental pollution of the sample base is the least of the
> problems.  But that's not what we're trying to do.
> 
> So, without discussing the factuality of the claims, why are they
> relevant?

I think it's highly relevant to how the data on usage is interpreted.

Scott K