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

["Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[e-mail]>]

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

On 1/8/15 10:56 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> 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.

OK.

>
>
> 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.

Right, and I don't disagree with that (seeing what's out there so we
don't have to code).  But I am struggling with going out there and
seeing what's "good enough" if I don't know what bar (or set of bars)
I'm trying to meet.  So, for that, problem statements and use cases help
me figure out if a tool is going to work, regardless of who wrote it.

>
>
> 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."
>
OK.

- -Heather
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUryJmAAoJEER/xjINbZoGmlMIAJmRLMsMysI9QwcR/Froe6oN
sxwhee289OiswCXDoc5Y8j2IgkbGWEm4UU3bWctRX4/W90V48YgXgLRZUSmZ1l1O
0WTJC1AY00j57MQoFtU0idyXlNcQW6R7rSdgthc62skCGFnDtapWFairZ1NDX5vF
z4dJ7tta4++B/szKX2cpaxs6gV2t5D3QzMe8HAWOGlObKldf0p5947JKnWIiFini
Et0s/w8/9MMFUcRs903976+Q9ur3krvfuwcu6kLQ7xweMEFB+DAwWi8Id7zDr42m
iwIg/HKhtKKs3x7k9VqfDltNxHfHoR1i3PIUqglEipDEHld1wH0EGLL6HqEnZTk=
=TEhJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----