I agree with your approach. However, if it should be tested by
community and reported successful then why we need to go through 5
years, just publish fast ways,
AB
++++++++++++
Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:27:17 -0800
If this is an experiment, then you presumably answers to the following
questions:
1- what is your an hypothesis?
2- what you intend to measure?
3- what is your 'control' against which to compare the results?
4- what is your objective metric for success/failure?
I've heard only one hypothesis - that this reduces time to
publication. I disagree that this is a useful hypothesis to test for
the following reasons:
- time to publication isn't a goal of the IETF
IMO, any doc that isn't useful in 5 years ought
to not be published here; we don't need to
document every sneeze
- thorough review ought to be a requirement
and this 'experiment' potentially compromises that
by reducing the overall time of review
- community resources ought to be considered
and this 'experiment' burns group resources
due to having a broad group concurrently review
a doc that could have been reviewed by smaller
groups first
Given the limited cycles this community has to review docs, I cannot
see a benefit to this experiment that is worth the cost.
Having this entire community burn cycles on this document speaks for
itself. It should have been vetted in a smaller, more invested
community first.
Calling something an 'experiment' doesn't make it worthwhile to test.
Joe