Hiya,
On 12/02/2012 12:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I, and I believe lots of us, do want to encourage running code
more than now. This is one attempt to help with that. Why not
try it and see?
Because as a "reward" for claiming to have running code, I think it's
a terrible idea. As a way of handling the process for documents where
it makes sense to, I think it's fine.
I don't get that distinction to be honest. Maybe we interpret the
word reward differently here. I'm using it with only positive
connotations but the scare quotes above seem to imply you're not.
If you want the criteria for
your WGs to be "You have to have running code," knock yourself out.
Any other ADs who want to do it that way can join you. If you want to
codify that for everyone,
I do. I want this to be something where WG chairs can take the
initiative (not ADs) and where IETF participants can hassle their
WG chairs to use this. So I don't want it to be an AD-driven
thing really.
I think you need to do a lot more in the
line of criteria for adequate implementations, and so on.
Fair enough. Be interested in more on that.
If I spend
half a day knocking out some crappy untested code, is that good
enough? If not, how much testing does it need? I'm pretty sure we
don't want to go there.
Perhaps. As of now, I'm just saying that the WG chairs (all of 'em)
and the responsible AD need to accept that the code is ok for the
purpose. I think I can argue that that's enough, but would welcome
better ideas there or ideas about things they should take into
account that'd be worth including here.
Cheers,
S.