[Latingp] Work Product Quality

[Bill Jouris]

Dennis, 
I'm not saying that the methodologies we have developed are flawed.  I am saying that they are limited.  
There is some set of code points which are variants.  Each methodology we have can identify some subset of those variants -- but not all of them.  That is, after all, why we have developed multiple methodologies.  Our task, I submit, is not to process our methodologies; our task is to identify variants.  The methodologies are a means to that end; they are not the end itself. 
I believe we need to bear in mind that the methodologies which we have at this point may still not be sufficient to identify all of the variants which exist.  We need to accept that, if we find code points which we generally agree are variants, but which are not identified by our existing methodologies, that is not a bad thing.  It would be good to then identify why they are variants, in the interests of then finding others of the same type; to develop an additional methodology.  Good, but not critical. 
The quality of our work product is determined by how successfully we identify the variants which exist.  If we find variants which are not generated by our methodologies, that improves the quality of our work.  It does not, as you appeared to suggest, diminish it. 
What I suggest the panel do is remain open to the possibility (I would say the certainty) that we have not yet created methodologies which will identify all variants.  At some point, of course, we do have to stop.  But that doesn't justify just saying "These code points do not fit the existing methodologies, so we cannot even consider them."   Again, the methodologies are a tool, not an end.

Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris at insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct) 

    On Friday, February 22, 2019, 10:23:19 AM PST, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka at verisign.com> wrote:  
 
 
Bill,
 
  
 
I don’t see how the methods this panel have developed and signed-off on (some of them over a year ago) misalign with our goal.
 
  
 
What exactly are you suggesting this panel to do?
 
  
 
-Dennis
 
  
 
From:Latingp <latingp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris at insidethestack.com>
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:36 PM
To: Latin GP <latingp at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Latingp] Work Product Quality
 
  
 
Dear colleagues, 
 
  
 
I want to strongly disagree with the thesis put forward at this morning's meeting that the quality of our work product depends on our following some very small number of discrete methodologies for identifying variants.  It does not. 
 
  
 
A methodology, any methodology, is merely a tool.  Its purpose is to help us get to our goal -- identifying variants.  If we use multiple methodologies, each of which allows us to identify some (quite possibly overlapping) subset of the universe of variants, that's OK.  If we identify a few additional cases that we believe to be variants, while going outside those methodologies, that's OK too.   It is desirable to have methodologies which identify large subsets, but only because that expedites our work.  The methodologies are a means to an end, not the end in themselves. 
 
  
 
The quality of our work product is based on how successfully we identify the members of the underlying universe of variants.  How we get there is really irrelevant to the quality of what we produce.
 
  
 
  
 
Bill Jouris 
 
  
 
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20190223/7a1f7a07/attachment.html>