Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know this is tempting but who's to say that a report from 5 years ago
wrong?
I agree.
> One suggestion (and it doesn't need a new process) is to send an email to
> the reporter of each open report >N years old, saying "Is this still
valid?
> Unless you reply within one month, we will close it."
Yeah, but it does need a new process, because the email has to go out, and
the "still valid" response has to go somewhere.
And if the email bounces, that itself if a sign.
> For all reports before 2020:
> - Close all editorial reports.
> - Send "Is this still valid?" messages for the rest, and close them a
month later if no reply.
>> Or should the RPC host a hackathon at an upcoming IETF
>> meeting where verifiers work through as many open reports as possible?
>> We could bring pizza :-)
> Something like that for the reports since 2020; or launch an online
hackathon.
I'll bet such an effort could reduce backlog a bunch by eliminating more
bogus reports, and also approving many editorial reports.
But, for everything in between, it needs some expertise.
Maybe we should ask WG chairs to start reporting only a meeting basis, or on
a yearly basis, how many errata they have received, how many are closed, and
how many are still without sufficient information.
--
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
