On Aug 17, 2014 10:58 AM, "Paul Wouters" <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2014, Nico Williams wrote:
>
>>> However a quick search on the term produced some troubling existing
>>> usages that conflict with the usage in the draft:
>>
>>
>> Bikeshedding is what this is.
>
>
> Except in this day, the bikeshed needn't have a name. Our products are
> RFC numbers. As I said before, why define a term that we can't agree on?
Jonh Doe: this is a new utility shed design, it's highly portable and variably sized.
Jane Doe: but the examples are kinda focused on bikes, and anyways, that's what it's clearly designed around, so just call it a bikeshed.
John: but you could store lawnmowers, shovels, ..
Jane: your use of the term general utility is not really common place and no one well understand it.
John: you're just bikeshedding!
Jane: see? it's a bikeshed, and anyways, i don't care what color you paint it, this is about the name of the thing.
:)
IMO it's bikeshedding the name. We could be minting new words and it wouldn't be a problem: because by giving them this meaning we'd overcome the objection that until now they were meaningless.y
I assume there are no objections to the substance now. Publish it!
Nico
--