Running code, when it's an organic part of the document development,
is undoubtedly a good thing -- it doesn't make everything right, but,
yes, it does do *some* spec validation and probably does help spec
quality.
Fully agree. And this kind of experiment may encourage that
good thing some more. Or not. We'll not see if we don't try.
We may see if we do try. I think its worth trying. (That's
fairly obvious I guess:-)
Or we'll just waste time sticking in some side-process that isn't
necessary (all of this can already been done under current process,
with no experiment). As I've said on the IESG list, I think this can
be far better done with an IESG statement that says that
implementation, testing, and deployment should be considered as we
(the community and the IESG) evaluate documents. Then we just make
sure we facilitate the process instead of getting in the way of it.
That's a better promise than saying we'll cut out three or four weeks
of review time for a document that probably took 16 months to develop.
Barry