Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] what metric replaces page-count?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 12 April 2021 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F343A12E9 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 QYLVQ7TXi-Tv for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E50A03A12E7 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD7638D41; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:49:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id KbOZOqsPUR1J; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18C138D38; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E72D1241; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:42:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
cc: rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iL6wn83-W9t2H1P0o9k3mvir=WdKU164=C24Y53UsiFiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20557.1618171860@localhost> <F35C8691-ADA2-4DEC-B24A-0DFB5B76567F@tzi.org> <66fd7812-4d2c-bf9d-d4bf-16c501754d7e@gmail.com> <CACB24MtXPct5iOmYSgG5yQVt=-y5=L1nXmkqb4=TsPNfgsQihQ@mail.gmail.com> <4915F484-A2C4-44B0-BAF8-B3CF09D9450F@tzi.org> <CAHw9_iL6wn83-W9t2H1P0o9k3mvir=WdKU164=C24Y53UsiFiw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:42:13 -0400
Message-ID: <21747.1618267333@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/ms8qLwCYnnH96-69Hf7SuX3rx58>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] what metric replaces page-count?
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:42:23 -0000

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
    > The tone of "Time to move on from tired, inaccurate metaphors" smacks of
    > stating a position as fact, and that disagreement means that you are stuck
    > in the dark ages / ab absurdo.

+1

    > I've been using page count as a metric for tracking the amount of document
    > review I've performed, how much I'm reading, etc. Yes, it's not a perfect
    > metric, but it's one I've been using and is "good enough" for letting me
    > know roughly how much I've reviewed this month versus last month, how much
    > I've read in total, etc. I've got a system, and it works *for me*.
    > I really disliked the tone of "Time to move on from..." - I understand that
    > Richard doesn't happen like this metric - but I'm disappointed that,
    > increasingly, if you don't agree with someone in the IETF, the tone pivots
    > to implying that there is something wrong with them, or that they are
    > stupid, or similar...

This is really the origin of my question.
The IESG has used page-count as a metric.

It's interesting to look at documents in different WGs (or for different
protocols), and see how they vary in size.  How much is Protocol, and how
much is Security Consideration?

John Levine's "but IDs still have page count" helps me not at all when
comparing two RFCs.  It this a document I can read over a coffee break, or do
I need to lock-myself in the wifi-free tree-house all afternoon?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide