Hi John,
According to Google, exactly one such report was issued:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-ion-report-06 (the
published RFC omitted the results of the experiment, somehow). And this
particular experiment is not even mentioned in
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/process-experiment.html. Two other experiments
are listed, and I was unable to find any reports summarizing them.
So I'm willing to concede that the "process experiment" experiment
failed. But since I think it *could have been* a valuable process, and
since I'm seeing an IESG member proposing to use it, I would request to
hear from the IESG if they think RFC 3933 is still a management tool
they'd like to use.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 12/15/2012 01:15 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, December 14, 2012 10:49 +0200 Yaron Sheffer
<yaronf.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
The value in a 3933 experiment is in the Summary Report,
otherwise I agree it's a waste of time. At the end of the
period we will have a little bit of data to understand whether
we have traction for this idea, and whether we should make it
IETF-wide, allow it to quietly die or explicitly advise
against it.
I would encourage anyone who believes in "running code" wrt IETF
processes and who is willing to argue that one of the current
proposals should be adopted because there is real value in the
Summary Reports called for by 3933 to compile a list of
* 3933 Experiments
* The published summary reports for each
* How and where they found those reports.
I predict the results will be enlightening. :-(
john