[r-t] Definitions so far

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAO9hiFVYzxkp=pH6cgwvzp6PxEPWt+n3fj5U5CTbiPb3+uMWGw at mail.gmail.com>,
   Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:

> What is our long term plan for coping with things we've not even
> imagined yet? Is it the status quo, where we fight and bicker about
> it, eventually adding warts onto the existing definitions to
> accommodate each individual case? Or can we somehow make the process
> smoother?

*If* we can achieve what we are trying to do (a broad permissive framework
within which there is a descriptive mechanism) then it should certainly
better than what happens now.  But ...

We cannot hope to put in place all possible descriptions that will be
needed in future.  In that sense whenever there is innovation there will
still be a need to extend the descriptive mechanism.  

The difference will be that designing and building the extensions can be
done calmly because the choice of the most effective descriptions won't be
compounded by argument about whether they should be allowed/recognised and
the bitterness of having to 'break the law to get it changed'.   

If we can achieve a good solution now, by recognising the sort of area
where future extension might be needed and designing 'for but not with' (to
use a systems engineering term) then the future work will mainly be
addition, with a minimum need to re-work the places where new meets old.

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk