On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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.
>> 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!
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.