Re: #1416

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <g7f76a$g8e$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:

>> Russ's vote for IR is cancelled out by my vote for IC

>My enthusiasm for voting in technical questions is limited.

>Harald noted elsewhere that the idea of humming is to find
>rough consensus or its absence without counting.  Here with
>the very limited participation it is anyway not compelling.

Voting, or rather "counting heads" will give an indication of rough
consensus if there is a substantial majority one way or the other. If it
is evenly balanced, then you are still stuck of course.

But in this caase I think both Russ and I would be willing to accept a
majority view if it was clear we had one.

>But I do think that the Injection-Date in the approved RFC
>represents a *possible* and plausible concept.

Sure, but nobody is suggesting abandoning Injection-Date totally - it is
just a matter of who is supposed to add it and when. As I just explained
to Lisa, even Russ's version of #1416 is better than no version at all.

It's just that I think Injection-Date will catch on more rapidly if we
allow Injecting Agents to add it more-or-less always, in spite of the very
rare risk that an occasional user might see the same article twice.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5