Subject: [ietf-outcomes] Adoption legend summary on each page?

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:17:44 -0800

Folks,

g'day

Ray Pelletier commented to me that the notation for the Adoption column is not 
necessarily intuitive, and that it might be helpful to replicate the coding 
rules on each page.

It might be helpful to repeat the gist of the coding description on each page.

I've put in a version of this onto the Application page, associated with the 
Legend pointer:

    <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/misc/outcomes/wiki/IetfApplications>

and would like some feedback, before installing it on the other pages, or 
removing it.

Are you comfortable with the form of summary I put on the page?

Thanks.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:42:16 -0500

Hi Dave,

I found --, -, 0, +, and ++ fairly intuitive because obviously ++ is
more than +. (the 0 obviously needs explanation)
I do not find essential, useful, pending, minor, and failure to be as
intuitive.

I also find the ordering to be unusual. 
I tend to think of numbers, as in graphs, growing larger to the right.
So I would think the ordering should be --, -, 0, +, ++
or failure, minor, pending, useful, essential

>From my perspective, I think snmpv1 has been massively implemented,
deployed and used.
However, many environments deliberately disable snmp for security
reasons.
essential means "Basic or indispensable; necessary"
I don't know that a protocol that can be disabled in many environments
should be called "essential".
maybe important would be better than essential.

I find it difficult to rate things using different scales mixed
together. Is essential (i.e. necessary) the opposite of failure (not
achieving the desired end or ends)? Is useful the opposite of minor? I
think that you should compare apples with apples; the notations
equivakent to '-' and '+' should be opposites, so if you are going to
use "minor" (presumbaly meaning minor usage), then you should also use
major, as in major usage. Or you should use "very useful", "useful",
"not useful" and "not used" (or something else that uses relative
levels of the same metric). 

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 12:18 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ietf-outcomes] Adoption legend summary on each page?
> 
> Folks,
> 
> g'day
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-outcomes mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes
>

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:02:15 -0800

> I do not find essential, useful, pending, minor, and failure to be as

Cognitive styles vary.  Since you found the symbols intuitive, you don't need 
the legend; so the legend is for those who need help.

> or failure, minor, pending, useful, essential

Starting with the positive is a means of emphasizing it.

> However, many environments deliberately disable snmp for security

SNMPv1 might not be hugely used now, but there was a time when it was.

And this wiki is attempting to gauge whether bits of IETF were /ever/ 
successful, not just whether they are "successful" now.  The wiki is an 
historical marker, not a current news snapshot.

> should be called "essential".

But it WAS.

> levels of the same metric).

Sounds like the topic divides into

    1)  a determination of whether folks are dissatisfied with the current label 
definitions and then

    2)  an evaluation of alternative proposals.

Note the challenge in the scale's having "not useful" vs. "not used".

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker