Re: Add extension work to Interop matrix

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Dmitri Tikhonov <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> I get the feeling we are talking past each other.  Do you not
> acknowledge the evanescent nature of the Interop matrix


> You want to impose artificial strictures on the way the Interop
> results are recorded because it may scale poorly, but this argument
> is invalid:  To "scale," we can simply choose to do record things
> differently for the next Interop.
>

The standardisation process is iterative but to date we've followed a
fairly rudimentary pattern where each incarnation of the matrix relates to
a specific implementation draft, which in turn relates to some set of
versioned drafts. The proposal changes the pattern to now consider
extensions. Across the sheets we have little evidence of burning or
substituted letters, so its not clear how people would read into such a
occurrence.

The scaling problem is not invalid. Parsing the interop matrix, even in its
current form, is not user-friendly, especially for those not actively
engaged in the process.

We all share the matrix. Adding letters might help you but it doesn't help
me.

Lucas


>   - Dmitri.
>