Hi Matt, See inline
> Matt Peterson <mailto:m...@peterson.org> > July 14, 2015 at 12:44 PM > > Agree that results need special treatment and don't "go public by > default". The obvious end goal of "Consumer Report" is clear, however > language is needed to specify that exact scenario you mention. > Advertising a failing item isn't doing a positive service for anyone, > however members need to be encouraged to remedy problems when they > arise. Not sure how to word some equal ground here, maybe a negative > test is given a "TTL" or timeout to become compliant with all the > parties involved, otherwise it never makes it to the public site. It > may also seem a bit weird if all of public matrix data is 100% > positive with no defects or failures, maybe some generic reporting is > a half-way common ground "X number of pluggables had issues with Y and > Z number of switch unique pairs" - without listing the member or > organization by name? I believe there should be a waiting period, for the vendor to determine what the failure was and if/when/how it will be fixed, but I still contend that with the "Consumer Reports" type concept, the failure data needs to go out. I don't agree a failing item is negative for everyone, I think the knowledge is useful to anyone who is or might be using the device that failed. > >
_______________________________________________ opencompute-networking mailing list Unsubscribe: http://lists.opencompute.org/mailman/options/opencompute-networking opencompute-networking@lists.opencompute.org http://lists.opencompute.org/mailman/listinfo/opencompute-networking
