Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 12/1/12 2:21 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> My reluctance to get into this is based on an opinion that process
>> change proposals with more words attached tend to just not happen,
>> so fewer words is better.
> 
> I think that's actually a pretty terrible reason.  The goal is
> not to get the proposal through, the goal is to improve
> something.  That said, while I don't like change just for the
> sake of change I think that change for the sake of betterment is
> a very good thing indeed.  The main thing is that I've been trying
> to figure out where the harm would be here and I haven't been
> able to identify anything substantive.  I'd be good with giving
> this a limited run and seeing how it goes.

I would be more comfortable with the proposal if its applied only to 
new protocols, ideas, methods, etc.  The conflicts come when applying 
it to established standards, methods or BIS work.  While its possible 
to fast track the obvious, where there is potential issues, the 
proposal needs to be sensitive to fast tracking problematic issues.

-- 
HLS