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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 12/01/2012 11:51 PM, 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.  

Well, I think its an ok reason for not fully answering Dave's
question in this case, given the latitude offered by RFC 3933.
Tactical reticence like this would not be a reason to adopt
anything, I agree.

> 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.

Great.
S.

> 
> Melinda
> 
>