[UA-discuss] [UA-EAI] [Ext] Re: UA-EAI WG charter
jay at techobscura.com
Fri Aug 9 22:02:34 UTC 2019
> On 10/08/2019, at 9:25 AM, Mark Svancarek (CELA) <marksv at microsoft.com> wrote:
> Jay, my perception is different. I have been involved in the old system, so it's certainly possible that I am just defending the old system out of reflex, but bear with me.
I should be clear that I am not criticising the previous leadership. They were responsive to the community’s wishes, as is proper, but the community direction was not direct enough.
> I agree with you that our goal is to get noncompliant code changed. Our other activities are a means to that end.
> Coders don't change things unless they are aware of the issue and externally motivated to do it. That motivation comes from multiple sources. New noncompliant code will be created unless new coders are aware.
I agree but there is a big difference between speaking directly to developers and general awareness, which can take years to achieve.
Here are just some of the suggestions I have made previously to directly reach developers
1. Raise official bug reports in any non-compliant system that had a public issue tracker. Most code repositories have an issue tracker as a standard feature.
2. Publish very clear and detailed ‘official’ instructions on how to write compliant code, including recommended regular expressions for those that insist on using them and recommended live lookup code for people that code that way. The intent here is to fit with the current paradigm of the developer as closely as possible and minimise the work they need to do.
3. Offer developers a small amount of money, say $500 to motivate them to change their code. If we spent $1m on that I would regard it as a good investment.
4. Approach GitHub and others to run a ‘make your code compliant’ month where they promote our instructions directly on their site and to their users.
> And we can't change anything that we can't measure.
I agree and I love measurement, it’s a huge part of my daily working life. However, repeatedly measuring something that is only moving very slowly is not a good use of resources.
> As for resources, I truly wish we could spend more of them on code changes, but we've never been able to find enough subject matter experts willing to do the work for us at any price.
This really surprises me. I for one have offered and I’m sure there are others equally or better qualified than me.
> Does that make sense?
Yes, thank you for the considered reply.
+64 21 678840
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jay Daley
> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 2:09 PM
> To: ua-discuss at icann.org; ua-eai at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] [UA-EAI] [Ext] Re: UA-EAI WG charter
> I would like to note that I disagree with the recommendations about travel for multiple community members.
> The purpose of UASG should be to get non-compliant code changed and we should be using 95% of our resources to that goal. In the last couple of years we have become focused on promotion, branding, outreach, ambassadors, measurement, etc, which are all useful but have only an indirect impact on our goal. We are in danger of 95% of our resources going on these activities and our goal being achieved very, very slowly as a result.
> I would like to see travel limited to the chair and vice-chair attending only two icann meetings a year and the rest of our resources directly targeted at getting the code changed.
> Kind regards
> (sent from my phone)
> Jay Daley
> Managing Director
> techobscura Limited
> +64 21 678840
> skype: jaydaley
More information about the UA-discuss