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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 13/01/15 22:59, 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.

Fair enough. If some RFC editor folk wanted to do that, yes it would
short-circuit some things perhaps. Still no need to agree any
categorisation though - typo fixes are clearly that 99% of the time
and the 1% can be left to be modded up or not I'd say.

S.


>