[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "David A. Moon" <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Subject: Guidelines
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1986 23:25 EDT
- Cc: cl-technical@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 23 Jun 1986 16:16-EDT from David A. Moon <Moon at STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
The guidelines you mailed out are okay with me. I think before
publishing this a bit more description of what it means in practice
for the cost of a change to be large or small should be included;
this would be something like a description of the process, where
"small" changes would be adopted easily if they have merit, whereas
"large" changes would have to survive some more elaborate process.
They way I've just described it is poor, and I don't think I would
agree with it myself if phrased that way. I think I saw a better
description go by in the mail in the past few days, but I can't
find it now. Perhaps you have it.
I'm not sure what "better description" you might be talking about. I
thought that the definitions of "big" and "small" changes was spelled
out sufficiently in the guidelines, and that the only difference in
procedure would be the degree of reluctance that we technical committee
members feel in agreeing to changes. I trust us be duly influenced by
this. Do you really want this set up more formally?