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 <[email protected]> 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
