>> I also don't think that the current errata system really creates a >> big workload. We have a big backlog, but that seems to be due to >> low prioritization (and I think that's a collective error). > > I think that's an erroneous diagnosis of the problem. The current > system is so bad, for all concerned, it causes most people to > de-prioritise errata processing would be my take. We should chuck > it out and replace it entirely.
I don’t know that “the current system” is in this opinion statement. If you are talking about the website presentation, I completely agree. This needs to be replaced by something that actually supports the workflow. In particular, it needs a way to capture (and automatically assign based on preferences) action holders, and an equivalent of https://datatracker.ietf.org/accounts/review/ If you are talking about the process, I completely disagree. What we currently have actually works quite well. This is overshadowed by the clunky web presentation. Also, the presentation of an RFC with errata applied could be more accessible. But I see no point in coming up with a new process. I don’t think we have a clear diagnosis what causes the inaction of the action holders. * The clunkiness of the website presentation * The uselessness of some errata reports * The low-prioritization of the work by the action holders (authors, ADs, WG chairs) * Authors or other knowledge holders that have moved on or are no longer with us * The lack of recognition of those doing the work (at least, each verified errata should have a new paragraph in the Acknowledgements) * The clunkiness pushing down the priority * The lack of availability of the fixes pushing down the priority * The difficulty in coming up with good fixes for errata found * Difficulty in getting the authors and reviewers together again * Interest in action holders to *not* resolve or otherwise draw attention to the problem * Low quality of the RFCs that makes it hard to generate succinct fixes * Extensive work required e.g. for correcting examples * Production tools (e.g., CI for examples) no longer being available I propose to fix the website first. Grüße, Carsten -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
