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

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

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?

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]