> On Jun 28, 2024, at 08:46, Tobias Fiebig <[email protected]> > wrote: > Nick and I cut down the draft significantly, to focus on the essentials.
Yes, this draft and the prior one are, essentially, very different documents.
I think the prior draft _looked_ more complete, but was, for the reasons cited,
not a firm foundation. While much of the content was good, it felt a bit like
a disorganized and maybe-a-little-arbitrarily-selected laundry list of
potential work items for ISPs, whereas the new draft feels more like a
well-organized scaffolding, derived from principles, and now waiting to be
fleshed out with more detail in many places.
So, I believe that this is a big improvement, in that it makes much more
evident what work remains and gives structure to that work. I suspect that if
there’s general agreement regarding this scaffolding, some of the specifics of
the prior draft may be moved over into appropriate places within it, retaining
some of the value of the work already done. But I would be careful not to do
that on too wholesale a basis, or to assume that everything in the prior draft
must eventually find a home in the new one. Instead, work from the new draft
backwards, fleshing it out with detail where it seems appropriate.
Removing things is always more difficult than adding them, so, nice work Tobias
and Nick, I appreciate the mindful approach you’re taking.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
