duration of the ports freeze

[David Southwell]

On Sunday 02 December 2007 08:27:28 Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> > I am not comparing a ports freeze to Global warming -- just
> > likening the responses to a problem.
>
> And like global warming it is something everyone thinks they know
> something about but at the end of day it turns out that as far I can
> tell no one really understands the entire problem.   Michael Crichton
> did a really good job looking at this in "State of Fear" (2003) where
> he basically showed in a fictionalized manner (but as shown in the
> appendix's fact based) that anyone who claimed to understand global
> warming (or lack thereof) was being at best egotistical.    Basically
> his thesis is we do not know enough (with hard science) about the
> problem (or lack thereof) base any short of policy on.   In short
> everyone is equally wrong.
>


Nicely put -- the only thing I would disagree with in that argument is that 
clearly the present system is becoming more intolderable so in that sense 
those of us who argue for change are responding to what they see as a genuine 
problem whereas those who argue to do nothing tend to deny there is a 
problem. Those of us that are seripously inconvenienced as a result of the 
freeze tend to see such responses as inimicable.

That aside I agree with you that we need to take an analytical approach rather 
than a didactic one.
> The ports system I think is currently in the same state you have one
> group who thinks nothing is wrong but doesn't have any historical
> evidence to support such a claim.   On the other side you have people
> (like me) who "know" there is a problem but lack any kind of hard data
> to clearly state what it is (or that there even is one).
>
So I think you are ploughing a straight furrow here.
> Thats the reason for the survey I posted (an objective first look at
> peoples empirical perceptions of the system as a way of framing what
> questions need to be answered to know if there really is a long term
> problem).   Only then can we quantize the problem and establish a set
> of tests to objectivally see the current longterm health of the
> system.   Assuming a change is needed then we will need to start to
> look at solutions.   I suspect the first 2 phases will not be done to
> mid Jan and a reasonable first cut as to solutions will not be done to
> the end of Feb.

That sounds like fast progress.

One of the difficulties I have found when studying existing systems is that 
the most valuable insights frequently come from evidence initially gathered 
through dialogues that cumulatively create a body of anecdotal evidence 
which, by its nature, is not externally  validated neither is the level of 
general applicability known . However once a body of anecdotal evidence has 
been obtained it can then be used as a resource  to help frame the questions 
required to obtain empirical evidence.

I therefore wonder if we could ask people (maybe through open invitations via  
a  selcted number of freebsd maillists) to submit brief "stories" that 
concisely describe individual circumstances and experiences where the 
existing system has not worked well for them. If we are going to find out 
what is not working then we need responses to open questions that  help not 
just identify  weak spots but also why they are perceived to be weak!.  Such 
an ivitation would need to be very carefully worded.

This procedure will pose the challenge -- how can we empirically test both the 
validity and the generality the perceptions and experiences described to us?

David