Subject: RE: Time required to write down "wisdom" (Re: "Adult supervision")

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 06:48:36 +0300

Thomas,

One follow-up:

> You can't rush a document (if you want it to be good). Indeed, when I
> write documents, I personally find that if I reread something I wrote
> a month earlier, I often find obvious things that need fixing. I often
> don't see these if I review the document a few days after last working
> on it. The point here is that good documents just don't happen on the
> first version and time is needed to properly review and iterate.

Well, sometimes good may even be too much, if it results in a document
coming out much later than the market needs.  'Good Enough' is, quite
often, sufficient.  Part of the IETF work is to make protocols that
interoperate.  If needed protocols are not done when needed, then
there is no interoperation.  Talking to some former-IETFers, one
of the main reasons for not bringing new protocol work to the IETF
is that it takes too long to get the work done.  To me, good enough
is better than none at all.  I think in most cases, this is probably
enough.

John

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 01:31:49 -0400

> often, sufficient. 

If the market needs something that screws the users, then it's not Good
Enough.  IETF does not exist to bless whatever the market wants, 
and especially not to bless whatever marketers think the market wants.
We MUST NOT let presumptions about market criteria compel us to accept
technically shoddy work.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:32:06 +0200

> is better than none at all.  I think in most cases, this is probably

John,

Our industry is maturing, I think. Our notions of "good enough" and "too
slow" may need to change. Note, I'm not disagreeing that we need better
processes - but let's recognise that the world is changing.

  Brian

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 10:05:05 -0500

Dear Brian,

I'm finding myself reading a number of things into your e-mail that you
didn't actually SAY - could you elaborate a bit, so that I can better
understand?

Thank you,

Spencer

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 17:46:30 +0200

> > processes - but let's recognise that the world is changing.

Well, I wrote that while sitting in an IPv6 Forum meeting in Madrid, which
is a good place for realising that strategic goals are important in the
face of pragmatic solutions. Also the current Economist has an excellent
survey on the maturing of the IT industry - well worth reading.
For paid subscribers, it starts at 
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1747329

I think we are heading towards a period when "good enough" may in fact
not be good enough. I would expect customers to be expecting something
much nearer perfection within a few years. And the history of every 
industrial technology has, I think, showed that high quality standards 
are an unavoidable part of getting to that level.

So I think that while the frustration of a thorough standards process
is annoying, that doesn't allow us to adopt short cuts that compromise 
quality. We should work out how to achieve quality more quickly.

   Brian