Hi,
While I find the idea of actually tracking experimentals rather inviting, I do
think the overhead of such a process should definitely be part of the
consideration.
I find the idea of knowing when an experiment its over, challenging. For
example, I am working on an experimental, albeit an IRTF experimental, now.
While I may have some idea of when any experiments I am part of end, how would
I know about the other people who might be experimenting? Will there be a
request for them to register their intent to experiment? Do people purpose
tracking that? What does it mean to say the experiment is over?
One thing I would like to see is an expectation that at some point there would
be a report on the findings of the experiment. Even just an ID on the topic
might be a good thing.
avri
Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 4/20/2012 6:36 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
What about the idea of requiring new Experimental documents to
include text that indicates when the experiment is to be considered
completed absent new work on it? Essentially, the document declares
a date by which the experiment is considered concluded,
...
To Eliot's point, work that is resumed much later could always
restore document and code point status and declare new drop-dead
dates when it becomes interesting again.
As Brian notes, "dates" are probably unlikely to be useful while also
imposing additional administrative tracking overhead.
On the other hand, objective performance/achievement criteria --
statements that describe what experiential information is being sought
-- would be useful to encourage.
d/
--
--
Dave Crocker
bbiw.net