dhc at dcrocker.net
Wed Jan 8 18:33:30 CET 2003
Monday, January 6, 2003, 12:02:13 AM, you wrote:
Harald> and that counterexamples are uninteresting
Harald> because they are exceptions or individual examples.
The question is whether an exception should be the basis for forming a
strategic rule or strategic plan, especially when the predominant
pattern goes against that rule or plan.
Harald> I would suggest that in the absence of verifiable data, detection of
Harald> patterns is an exercise in theology, not engineering.
It had never occurred to me to categorize "rough consensus" as
theology, but it did occur to me that we have a long track record of
using it as a surrogate for other, more cumbersome-and-precise
Harald> So I would suggest that when you claim a pattern, you also mention at least
Harald> 3 specific examples that you think fit the pattern.
Yes, that would be nice, just as it would be nice if those who think
that groups taking years to produce anything useful would provide data
showing how wonderfully successful such long projects were.
In lieu of that, a rough consensus of the community should suffice.
If the community thinks we've been doing great with working groups
taking 3, 5 and 8 years, then that's dandy. (Again, I admit to
curiosity for examples, since I cannot think of any, within the IETF.)
Harald> We've been talking a lot about "success" and "failure" here, but rarely
Harald> saying which projects we consider in each category - probably because we
Harald> all know that not everyone agrees on the status of each project.
Yup. Whereas folks DO seem to agree that the IETF has some basic
problems with productivity.
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