Re: [Errata-design] sanity notwithstanding...

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


For the record:

- - additional participants: someone who's familiar with how
some WGs are using github for drafts and issue tracking. I
believe any of mnot, ekr and martin thomson would all be fine.

- - as for goals: I'd suggest as goal#1 we figure out the
answer to this question: "can we put in place something
better that is good-enough but not perfect by just installing
some currently available free/open s/w?"

- - I would suggest that establishing unique requirements that
are 99% sure to cause someone to have to write new bespoke
code is an anti-goal

I'd suggest getting rid of the entire concept of errata and
just allowing anyone to comment on RFCs but with a way for
the RFC editor or stream controllers to mark some comments
as important. (Someone would need to handle comment spam of
course.) Such systems exist, we should just use them.

Cheers,
S.


On 19/12/14 16:42, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> 
> We have a list.
> 
> Any feedback on the goals and possible additional participants?
> 
> ----
> 
> Initial volunteers: Joel, Ted, Pete, Barry, Stephen, Sandy
> 
> Suggested additions: Robert Sparks, Nevil Brownlee, Lars Eggert,
> Carsten Bormann, Marc Petit-Huguenin
> 
> Goal: The RFC Series began posting errata in 2000; the current
> system kicked off in towards the end of 2007.  The purpose of the
> system is to keep a record of errors in the document series; a
> particularly important action when it comes to errors that impact
> implementation of a standard. Individuals interact with the errata
> system as submitters, reviewers, approvers, and consumers, and may
> cross over roles depending on the actions they are performing
> (e.g., reporting an error, looking for errors as they implement or
> create a -bis doc, etc.)
> 
> Over the last several years, there have been a variety of requests
> with regards to the errata system, including requests to do away
> with the errata system, requests to expand the errata system to
> include more than just errors, and requests to try and streamline
> the process for submission and approval.  In addition, a need to
> consider how the errata system will handle the new format era, when
> RFCs are represented in more than one format with slightly
> different content (i.e., artwork) has been thrown into the mix.
> 
> The purpose of the design team is to review the existing errata
> process, discuss the various requests for change and enhancement,
> and recommend a model going forward that could in turn be used as
> requirements for any programming effort going forward.  The work,
> including the time needed to implement at least the format-related
> changes in the system, will ideally be done before the format
> changes are in production (est Q4 2015/Q1 2016).
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Errata-design
> mailing list [e-mail] 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/errata-design
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUlJv9AAoJEC88hzaAX42iLXQH/19Xrk+7lLIfh9zoZRkZ62Z7
Uu7SUAEaqrj3uTnTGypc1DzCl+xeEhuOIlKaXE3sb6WdzsH/eQGOpJQ88Cj5cxDa
EsVJpQTZ2OXiUnLcQTLW130OdWVVIZUgBm9dtXfpArAeg3LS7NEitMF/76Fi7sMB
fMj+NPiL++kKMby/EN3kPelBUHd2JfVDyOxcI6zWS5f1ZdS6nfM4nzJh2tXoM0Yd
Rsd+7Rn71hWryVnT2tEk3wFmfpLvPJwNBKbq92WZbJ+DXJ8o6F6iDnwO+u1DhdRw
oxALYKeLj8UxZk0hhOgCUh73udwV40JtCHWD/yN1ndV8KImge4IE17V3PjMuMI4=
=ekFP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----