On 1/29/2013 10:32 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
It was proposed as an experiment, but I think was interpreted
as a proposed process change,
wow.
If you don't think it was a process change, exactly what do you think
would have been experimented on?
The label "experiment" is a qualifier for the substantive reference, not
a replacement. In this case, the substance was with IETF process.
You sought an experiment /with/ the process.
The statements of intended benefit were:
Abstract:
"have the IETF process
explicitly consider running code, consistent with the IETF's overall
philosophy of running code..."
and
Introduction:
"speed up the
progression of certain working group documents in the latter stages
of the process."
which is then countered and added to, by:
"the savings in time for the end-to-end delivery
of a proposed standard or experimental RFC may be modest, however,
the modifications to normal IETF process will also serve as an
indication of the importance that the IETF places in running code."
The Abstract's justification text doesn't actually describe a
"motivation" as it claims, but rather simply describes a behavioral
change. It says what will be done, not why it is worth doing.
That the Introduction discounts its own, first-stated purpose, by
finally casting the Abstract's reference in terms of "importance" adds
to some confusion about the nature and purpose of the experiment.
In other words, you essentially characterized the experiment as:
"Let's do something that will have little direct benefit but will
symbolize the importance of something the IETF has already valued for..
ever."
This didn't make for a very compelling foundation.
And thereby makes this exercise particularly ill-suited for
generalizations about the IETF's ability to conduct experiments.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net