On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Ted Lemon
<Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>
wrote:
For me, "rough consensus" and "running code" should be taken
together, not independently. I've always taken it as "rough consensus
OF THOSE WITH running code".
Larry, that is awesome!
Unfortunately it's pretty easy to game this by writing some running code
that isn't very usable, and then claim that you are right based on the fact
that you have running code and the other folks don't. I think this should
certainly be considered, but it's not quite as strong an argument as is
being claimed.
I think you're misunderstanding what "running code" means - it should not
be taken to mean "code that runs", in as much as it compiles, or whatever,
but "code that is running", meaning deployed and actively used. That is
quite hard to game, since if you manage to contrive some code that's in
deployment just to prove a point, you're really no longer gaming the system.
What Larry is saying - or at least, what I'm agreeing with, regardless of
whether Larry meant this or not - is that if you've a bunch of people
saying "I've implemented this in production, and X needs to be Y", then
that is a very hard argument to beat.
It's not insurmountable - various security-based arguments might hold up
well in particular - but it thoroughly raises the bar for counter-arguments.
Dave.