Re: [Errata-design] Scheduling a kick off call

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 08/01/15 18:10, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> As a reminder, I have a wiki where I've tried to summarize what
> complaints I've heard about the existing system and where I'll track the
> proposals on how to fix it:

That URL was broken for me by some mailer,
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/wiki/doku.php?id=3Derratasystem:complaints=

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/wiki/doku.php?id=erratasystem:complaints

The above worked though.

And in looking at the 3rd bullet of that...

"3.  Searching for serious errata when faced with an unprioritized
list is hard.
    a. Most individual errata are not actually important; need to
be able to quickly distinguish between what is and isn't important"

I think it'd be better to clarify that the actor in the above is
also something TBD and might not be an RFC editor staffer or AD
but could also (depending on what this group come up with) be some
near-random member of the community.

That said, I'll now repeat myself and say again that another way
to tackle this is not problem-statement,use-case,requirements and
then pay a coder, but to just see what s/w is out there that might
be good enough already. gitlab I think is one such and we could
just decide (if we wanted) that that's what we'll use going
forward and that we'll re-define errata to be something useful
that "just" works in that context.

Or if you really want to follow this approach, in terms of a
problem for putting on that wiki maybe you could say "The errata
system is a bespoke system with all the associated quirks and
there is no good reason why we couldn't re-define errata so
that they  are those things handled by some OSS s/w that
we pick."

Cheers,
S.