Harald Tveit Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Mon Jan 6 09:02:13 CET 2003
--On søndag, januar 05, 2003 09:45:08 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net>
> Monday, December 23, 2002, 11:42:22 AM, you wrote:
> Joel> The assumption that long-winded working groups inevitably
> It would be great if we could design a process that was infinitely
> flexible and could adapt to every possible working group setting.
> However we are unlikely to achieve that.
> Therefore, if we argue for or against proposals based on individual
> examples or exceptions, we will make no progress.
your statement as written seems to be that we should accept your perception
of a pattern without question, and that counterexamples are uninteresting
because they are exceptions or individual examples.
I would suggest that in the absence of verifiable data, detection of
patterns is an exercise in theology, not engineering.
So I would suggest that when you claim a pattern, you also mention at least
3 specific examples that you think fit the pattern.
We've been talking a lot about "success" and "failure" here, but rarely
saying which projects we consider in each category - probably because we
all know that not everyone agrees on the status of each project.
But unless we stop pussyfooting, I think we cannot engineer for reality.
> My own discussion tried to claim some *patterns*. A pattern does not
> require correlation of 1.0. It does not require that there be no
> exceptions. Rather it looks for dominant behavior. One might even call
> it a rough consensus pattern.
> My claim is that the *pattern* of IETF performance shows that excessive
> time highly correlates with poor productivity and utility.
> If we build a process that is tailored for the exception, we are likely to
> retain the current IETF productivity problems. However that is not the
> IETF folks seem to want. So the question is how to improve productivity
> without losing the essential core to our process.
> Dave <mailto:dhc at dcrocker.net>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
More information about the Problem-statement