Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

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

 




On 12/1/2012 1:00 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 12/1/12 11:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
What actual problem is this trying to solve?  I see the reference to a
'reward', but wasn't aware that there is a perceived problem needing
incentive to solve.

I gather this is one of those "everybody knows" problems, where
"everybody knows" that it takes what's perceived as too long to
get documents through the post-wglc/pre-publication process.


Yes.  Longstanding opinion held by many folk.  Might even be valid.

The problem is a failure to look carefully at wg lifecycle and consider where meaningful -- as opposed to 'appealing' -- improvements can be made.

At a minimum, any proposal for change should be expected to justify the specific problem it is claiming to solve -- that is, to establish the context that makes clear the problem is real and serious -- and that the proposed solution is also likely to have meaningful benefit.

I share the frustration about lengthy standardization, and particularly with delays at the end. And certainly there is nothing wrong with adding parallelism where it makes sense.

However absent a consideration of the lifecycle, the current proposal is a random point change, quite possibly an example of looking for lost keys under a lamppost because that's where it's easiest to see.


There's probably some sort of sympathetic vibe running between
this document and recent discussion of nearly-cooked work being
brought to the IETF for standardization.

rumblings of free-floating dis-ease, perhaps.  but are they really related?


If somebody hasn't already documented how long it takes to get
through the various steps once a document is into wglc, it
would be worthwhile to start taking notes.

If a wg takes 2 years to get into wglc, a difference of a month doesn't matter, does it? That's why I mean about total lifecycle. Otherwise we're committing the classic system engineering error of inappropriate local optimization.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net


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