On May 31, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 01/06/2012 00:04, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Works for me, other than it should not be a "wiki". It should have one >> editor who takes proposed changes from the community the same way we do >> it now. Not all suggestions from this community, even from individuals >> in the leadership, are ones that should appear in such a document. > > In practice, if this is to be a living document then it should be open for > inspection and poking rather than preserved in formaldehyde and put in a > display case, only to be opened occasionally when the curator decides the > glass needs some dusting. That way leads to sclerosis.
Thank you for that most colorful analogy. :-) What I proposed is exactly what we are doing now, except that the changes would appear on the web page instead of an Internet-Draft and, five years later, an RFC. Are you saying that the current system (which you have not commented on until now) is sclerotic (a word that I have wanted to use since I learned it in high school)? > Please put it on a wiki and put all changes through a lightweight review > system. If someone makes a change which doesn't work, then it can be > reverted quickly and easily. This approach is much more in line with the > ietf approach of informality / asking for forgiveness rather than > permission / rough consensus + running code / etc. In the IETF approach, only the authors of an Internet-Draft can change the contents of that draft. I hope you are not proposing a change to that as well. --Paul Hoffman
