Re: RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision Making Processes for Consensus-Blocked Decisions in the IETF (fwd)

--Matthew Elvey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 2)A major failure of , e.g. the MARID WG (including the Chairs) was the
> failure to encourage/require a cost (in the broadest sense of the term)
> analysis of the proposals. This scheme fails to encourage that too.
> Instead it just says "the working group chair(s) should also make    an
> explicit call for consensus, summarizing the technical issues and    the
> choice to be made."
> Cost analysis is not a technical issue.  (But I hope it's in MARID's new
> charter if it gets re-chartered!  (Anyone pushing for that?))


A minor note, but worth noting.  Cost may not be a "technical" issue but it 
is certainly an "engineering" issue!  Some software engineers with little 
hardware experience might dismiss cost as an issue, but they can check with 
their colleagues (such as hardware engineers, mechanical engineers, etc) if 
they have ever been asked to design something without regard for the cost.

Even "legal" or "IPR" issues can be a real-world cost, or a significant 
barrier to adoption, if not a dollar amount.  Designing something in a 
vacuum to see if it works in the lab, without concern for implementation 
issues, is fun "science" but horrible "engineering".

--
Greg Connor <[email protected]>