Re: Running code, take 2

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(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 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