Jean Mahoney <jmaho...@amsl.com> wrote:
> form the basis of a proposal for a new system. Specifically, the RPC
wanted
> feedback on two views that have emerged from discussions on this list:
> 1. Any new system should aim to address the broader issue of supporting
RFC
> consumers who have a question.
> 2. There should be a separate forum (a list, issue tracker, or other
> solution) where document issues are discussed that can better manage issue
> outcomes such as errata creation or document updates.
> These two views are well expressed in
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-farrell-errata-00.html
I'm a bit lost as to how these two views are captured in Stephen's document.
The above email suggests that there is a conflict, and I don't see that
captured. I'm 100% in favour of what Stephen wrote..
> The feedback from the stream managers was clear: When a mailing list
exists
> for a relevant working group or research group, then any discussion about
> errata should be on that group's list, and not in a separate system, in
order
> to ensure transparency and that any decision reflects group consensus.
I'm really not sure that that this is an IETF majority position.
I think that there might be some loud voices who are often in the rough who
say this. The system of summarizing (github) issuer trackers into weekly
mails works well in my opinion, even if I sometimes find it a bit of a
Monday-morning DoS to my inbox.
> There
> was a concern that a separate system would be disconnected from the WG/RG
and
> potentially dominated by a small group of people who had the time, but
maybe
> not the authoritative knowledge, to respond.
> From the RPC side, there was concern that consumers of RFCs are quite
> different from RFC producers, and it is not helpful to drop a consumer
with a
> question into the WG/RG process. The stream manager response was that the
> integrity of the WG/RG process could not be risked with a separate
discussion
> forum, and therefore any proposed new system should *not* aim to address
the
> broader issue of supporting RFC consumers who have a question, but solely
> concentrate on errata reports.
...
(I further think that a self-hosted instance of gitlab probably satisfies the
need, and also some others, but we can discuss that later)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
