[Battlemesh] No results again

[nemesis]

 At the moment I have the impression that everybody is welcome to run 
 tests as long as they use wibed, and if they don't, they get attacked.

 So I do not really understand your email Christian, do you mean that if 
 next year we want to participate to the battlemesh we have to use wibed?
 Or are we free to run our own tests without being forced to use a 
 system which many people, who for some reason are not speaking out, find 
 it uncomfortable using?

 It is clear to me that now there are two groups of people: those who 
 want to run wibed and those who would prefer trying something different.
 We either let both participate and try different scenarios, hence 
 getting even more results, because we can do more tests if we work well, 
 or we should clarify that the tests need to be performed with a single 
 system, like wibed, therefore those who don't find it comfortable to 
 work with it will have to decide if coming just for the talks or not 
 come at all.

 Federico


 On Mon, 9 May 2016 17:53:08 +0200, Christian Huldt 
 <christian at solvare.se> wrote:
> +1
>
> Battle of the testbeds has to organize their own event IMHO.
>
> Battlemesh has always been a very welcoming environment, I think that 
> is
> one reason for the growth, please keep it that way...
>
> Den 2016-05-09 kl. 17:39, skrev Simon Wunderlich:
>> Hi,
>>
>> on which authority is anyone expelling anyone here? I think nobody 
>> can and
>> should get expelled on disagreements on the testbed! I think the 
>> discussion is
>> getting a little unprofessional here, looking at Juliusz' 
>> statements, who
>> wasn't participating WBM in Porto and various other events before. 
>> Please, let
>> us keep to the facts, and don't mark anything "fundamentally 
>> flawed". I think
>> that talking about problems and mistakes is very important to 
>> improve, but NOT
>> in a way that anyone should feel expelled.
>>
>> Please, let us talk about the problems and solutions professionally 
>> here. Let
>> us point out problems based on specific occurrences. And lets fix 
>> them.
>>
>> Personally I don't care which testbed system is used for next year, 
>> and its
>> for the people who prepare and perform the tests to decide (which is 
>> not me).
>> And personally I appreciate the effort of everyone helping to make 
>> the tests
>> work, even if we don't have results every time, because even if we 
>> don't, we
>> as the protocol developers get valuable results. For example, even 
>> this year
>> we got various valuable bug reports which made us fix problems in 
>> BATMAN V. If
>> I heard correctly, it was similar for other protocols as well.
>>
>> Lets stay positive here!
>> Thanks,
>>      Simon
>>
>>
>> On Monday 09 May 2016 17:07:39 Roger Baig Viñas wrote:
>>> Hi and goodbye,
>>>
>>> FORTUNATELY the evidences contradict the unfounded statements (the 
>>> way
>>> of doing science of some academics -together with overlooking the
>>> facts which contradict their theories). In v6, inspired on v5's 
>>> work,
>>> we presented WiBed and, not only we  got test results, but we were
>>> able to present them in figures systematically produced and a full
>>> report was delivered afterwards [1].
>>>
>>> UNFORTUNATELY some individuals insist in expelling people from the 
>>> WBM
>>> while the community stays quite. Last year was Sven's turn, now it 
>>> is
>>> mine.
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/axn/wbm2pdf
>>> [2] 
>>> http://ml.ninux.org/pipermail/battlemesh/2015-August/003807.html
>>>
>>> My apologises to those who trust me again after last year's farce.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 May 2016 at 15:48, Juliusz Chroboczek
>>>
>>> <jch at pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
>>>>> You still hit the same problems as we had 10 years ago, it takes 
>>>>> too
>>>>> much time to get a decent testbed running.
>>>> No, Benjamin, read Federico's mail again.
>>>>
>>>> Last year, most of the people working on the testbed tried to get 
>>>> wibed to
>>>> work.  A small group of people (including Federico), some of which 
>>>> had
>>>> never touched an OpenWRT router before, decided to work in 
>>>> parallel and
>>>> build a simple testbed that we fully understood.  The small group 
>>>> got some
>>>> very useful results; the wibed people got none.
>>>>
>>>> Let us please face it: the notion of a magical testbed that will 
>>>> solve
>>>> world hunger is fundamentally flawed.  The basic idea behind wibed 
>>>> is
>>>> fundamentally flawed.  Let's take this into account in the future 
>>>> -- let's
>>>> limit ourselves to simple test frameworks that people actually 
>>>> understand.