Re: [Errata-design] An example of an erratum that takes time for little value

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

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

On 1/13/15 2:59 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2015, at 2:54 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I doubt that there will be exactly two categories and assert that
>> we do not need to care about any categorisation. If a free-form
>> comment field gets modded up enough, then (and only then) should
>> someone have to look at it. And before then it doesn't matter what
>> it says, except to the odd folk who'll want to read/see such things.
>
> I think the "modded up" part is true of non-typographical corrections
that would now be marked verified: it would help if we didn't have to
see them until they rose above a certain level of support.   But for
basic typos, if we had an RFC editor trolling the errata stream, I think
that process could be short-circuited, and if we had a good way to
present the corrected text, I think it would be worth doing.
>
In an errata system that relies on community management to mod specific
entries, what would it mean for the RFC Editor to handle basic typos? 
The RFC Ed wouldn't change the existing RFC.  Would we just divert these
entries into another system or something?  What were you thinking this
might look like?

- -Heather

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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUt+5HAAoJEER/xjINbZoGP3MH/RpII3vG2+RBoHJUOro4kvvB
jXFnJi+u4LixjrAo5TZ/jyTRjYDGoSA78MDxk2A+Dc4CQtSwyz3jxjfnyhOlaZtq
aQ1GtH1Kwz6k0JGQmrrFagb8WPhLfYBH26diRIr4TsBacHKJLlhqoucT6EzDLPCk
rqQC97hnzoMjckmtwEJJ4ITNJnMnapHym+eJEWPzWG16wn8NlKpv+ETG3j8rUIx9
t6h9XQ8g9iOpVAj5cVDtmbbfgipeH9RIiFpqVEhgtXs0jqvfhQOY8KgrEbo418gS
L3fVsz/Qnk08x+AbqRRJ//1xpD576S9XRiy8Mm0FMnVM3QYxwDNoAcXvUghG7sU=
=jhw4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----