On 10/17/05, Manuel Kasper <mk at neon1 dot net> wrote:
> It's not been launched yet, so please don't fill it in yet - but have
> a look at the proposed questions/answers and let us know if you think
> anything should be changed:
- platform should be checkboxes, IMO. I can't answer that question in
a way that wouldn't be misleading, as I have Soekris 4501, 4801, WRAP,
and PC's in production. Maybe even a number next to each platform
- on the questions where you can enter a number, if you have multiple
boxes, I think it should be noted that you should use the median
specification amongst your installations
- on Yes/No questions, I'd imagine people will be allowed to skip
questions, but we may want to make note of that or put in a field for
"other", i.e. indifferent/"don't know"/"don't care" or something.
- on IPsec, I guess that feature wraps up NAT-T and other things, but
I think we may want to re-word that option. Maybe something like
"Enterprise-class IPsec support (dynamic IP, NAT-T, DPD, Xauth
one last concern, just making sure appropriate input validation is
done (where it says check 3, you can only check 3 or less, in RAM
require between 32 and 8000 or something, etc.) We can clean up data
later, of course, but it would be best to keep the data as clean and
reasonable as we can up front.
> Also, do you think we should set a fixed date when the survey will
> end (and how much time should we give it in that case), or just sit
> and wait until we think enough of them have been submitted (as was
> done with the first survey)?
well... I'd say go with no end date at first, then once we think we
have sufficient replies, give it another week and send out another
announcement with the newly-determined deadline.