On 12/01/16 18:55, Mike wrote: > On 1/11/2016 11:36 PM, Emile Aben wrote: >> [snip] >> dismissing this as useless is a bit premature i think. this is an >> experiment about how to get community feedback, tied to specific >> resources (ripe atlas probes) this community has (ie. one vote per >> probe). if the number of people that 'vote' is insignificant the >> conclusion is that my attempt of collecting feedback didn't work. >> >> [snip] > > If I want to affect the feature set of the probe, I would do so by using > communication channels that are already in place, e.g., that we are > using now with this mailing list. > > I view the probes' tags as a way to announce what the capability of the > probe is, and not what I want the capability of the probe to be. I feel > that the reduction of the usefulness of the probes' tags to something > akin to facebook's "likes" is a diversion of purpose.
agree that this shouldn't become a facebook-"like" type of thing, but it's a fine line. i see this particular tag as showing the potential for a capability of the probe, a tag like 'iwantaffordablebroadband' would not be. > If you want to have some manner of voting, then do so via your account > on the RIPE website. I have to log in to the account to change the tags > on my probe, why not just put a voting option on the website? I see no > need, and I have no desire, to display my vote among the public data on > my probe. agree, this is a hack. a web poll could be a better means of collecting feedback, if we'd also tie the analysis to probe hosting, to show if there is potential for an opt-in bcp38 compliance testing. current status of the tags: $ egrep -i 'bcp38|spoof' tags.txt iwantbcp38compliancetesting (45) sourceaddressspoofok (3) bcp38 (1) i'd characterise that as a bit low turn-out, but informative in the light of previous discussions on this mailing list. as a comparison, for the ripe labs poll on wifi measurements in ripe atlas we got 159 voters. cheers, emile
