Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >
> > At this point, I think this is too strong. My understanding of Larry's
> > intention is that we are now brainstorming. Brainstorming can not work
> > if folks will pre-filter their ideas. Part of the effect is a half-baked
> > idea on another member of the brainstorming group. (I've seen some of
> > the effect in Damian's responses)
>
> "RFCs should be *FOLLOWED BY* a prototype implementation"
>
> "...each RFC should *EVENTUALLY* be accompanyed by a prototype
> implementation"
>
> I'm not stating that each RFC should come with a prototype, but that
> one should be forthcoming as part of its development process.
>
> "If the RFC author feels they cannot implement the prototype on their
> own, they must find people who can. If they can't then they're not
> going to be able to find those to implement the actual code either."
>
> If you can't find the tuits to write the prototype, how are you going
> to find them to write the implementation?
No. You can not oblige the RFC maintainer to write the prototype or
cat-herd someone else into it. The vast majority of RFC authors
(myself included) would simply not be up to such an order.
Instead, it should be the WG lead's responsibility to ensure that each
accepted RFC gets a prototype (*EVENTUALLY*), assigning an implementor
if necessary.
--
John Porter
We're building the house of the future together.
