Re: Kudos to MeetEcho

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Just to be clear, this is not just bigness bias.  There are real concerns here:

1. Productivity -- The "rough edges" we're talking about here are really expensive in units of lost meeting time.  More widely-used tools are more likely to have obvious problems fixed.
2. Inclusiveness -- The higher the bar is to using a tool, the harder it is for people to participate effectively.  More widely-used tools are more likely to be things people have experience with, and more likely to adhere to commonly-used idioms.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:01 AM Simon Pietro Romano <spromano@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I see. This confirms my doubts, since I had different standards in mind.

Simon

                                  _\\|//_
                               ( O-O )
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     Simon Pietro Romano
               Universita' di Napoli Federico II
                      Computer Engineering Department 
                   Phone: +39 081 7683823 
                                           e-mail: spromano@xxxxxxxx

    <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento è l'alibi degli 
    idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
                                     oooO
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 \ (            (   )
                                  \_)          ) /
                                                                       (_/









Il giorno 27 lug 2020, alle ore 16:52, Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> ha scritto:

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:48 AM Simon Pietro Romano <spromano@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
While there has been a lot of progress since 107, it is clear from the first couple of sessions that there are still a many rough edges that are wasting a lot of WG time.  We should take a serious look at whether it's worth investing more in refining this tool, or whether a more standard tool would be appropriate.

It might look weird to request such a clarification on an IETF mailing list, but I am afraid we should first agree on the correct meaning of *standard* here.

I would start with something like >1m DAU.  That would give us tools that are broadly used (thus likely to have fixed the sort of rough edges we see here), but still leave several options to choose from.


 

Simon

                                  _\\|//_
                               ( O-O )
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     Simon Pietro Romano
               Universita' di Napoli Federico II
                      Computer Engineering Department 
             Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816
                                           e-mail: spromano@xxxxxxxx

    <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento è l'alibi degli 
    idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
                                     oooO
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 \ (            (   )
                                  \_)          ) /
                                                                       (_/






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux