[rfc-i] My comments on http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt
dhc2 at dcrocker.net
Tue Nov 16 15:52:00 PST 2010
Cj is zero, at least for this participating C; let's not pursue the question of
possible metaphysical influences of the non-participating C. I haven't left
yet. You folk are stuck with my baseline "reality-lag" Given that that's
usually pretty high, that might suffice as a replacement.
Unfortunately, your equation produces problematic results if either discussant
has no jet lag. I doubt that you want an equation that gives that much control
to either participant. On the other hand, the IETF process does tend towards
giving one person a veto. So perhaps your equation is more representative than
we'd like to admit.
The components of the sqrt function probably need to be summed, rather than
multiplied. Whether some additional amplification factor is needed is a
On 11/17/2010 7:42 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> Let Cj be the jet-lag coefficient for Crocker (either of them)
> Let Cs be the subtlety coefficient for Crocker
> Let M be a measure of misunderstanding and cofusion.
> 2 x SQRT(Lj x Cj)
> M = -----------------
> 1 - Cs
More information about the rfc-interest