Howdy,
I can't entirely agree with the argumentation, in part because (and again this goes back to how the text first appeared) metrics are useful to establish the state of the system, whether to critique the state or simply understand it. Appeal is only one form of critique.
That said -- I'm not planning to say any more on the subject. It's not something I'm suggesting should stop the document, either way!
Leslie.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 31 January, 2005 14:00 -0500 Leslie Daigle <leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Howdy,
I'm a little concerned about hacking the appeals path on the fly (i.e., dropping the IESG and going straight to IAB), but I can live with that.
WRT this:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section. > Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical.
I think it should appear in the document. Either in the IAD responsibilities (as you've suggested), or I can send more text as to how it pertains to appeals. That is, it's easier to avoid appeals when there is concrete data on the table, and/or support them where appropriate.
I don't think people want more text at this point. So, perhaps just putting it in the IAD section is the easiest path at this time.
Leslie,
FWIW, in the spirit of Sam's note, I'd like to suggest that this doesn't belong in the document at all, but in some informal list of things we expect the IAD to do and will hold her or him (and the IAOC) accountable if enough of it isn't done. That is the "less text" rather than "no more" theme. I don't consider that a showstopper one way or the other, however...
If it is to be put in as an IAD responsibility, it needs to be clear that "better measurement" is _not_ more important than getting the job done. My version of your comment about appeals is that, if the job is being done, and done well, meaningful appeals won't happen. If it is not being done, then the major benefit of extensive data is either to help prove that it isn't being done (which will probably be obvious) or to aid in telling those launching the appeal to go away... the latter if extensive, but irrelevant, data are collected. And I note that the original text did not require relevant metrics, interpretable metrics, or the like, just metrics. It shouldn't: those terms are nearly meaningless without careful definitions, and attempting to make those definitions would draw us into more and more detail that doesn't belong in the BCP even if we could agree on them. But "there will be metrics" don't necessarily aid in getting the job done and may actually impede it.
john
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf