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

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

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

On 12/23/14 10:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> On 23/12/14 17:39, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I have a knee-jerk reaction against this one; errata are really
important
>
> We'll be fine to work around it, but no, I very much disagree.
>
> Most RFCs are not important. And even fewer errata are important,
> in fact most are utterly pointless. But feel free to show me the stats
> as to how many errata are needed/read/anything.
>
> Note, I count important as being something needed by implementers,
> and I get that your view may properly put much more emphasis on the
> integrity of the RFC series as a whole. But while some form of
> comment/correction/errata *system* is important, almost none of
> the actual errata are at all important - they are today a fairly
> meaningless waste of time and effort and collectively they are a
> real annoyance and a waste of significant time and effort for ADs.
>
>>> and are a common thing to look for in technical publications.  Doing
away
>>> with them such that people have to hunt through a list of comments seems
>>> less than idea.  However, you probably have a more detailed set of
reasons
>>> in your head on why this would be a good thing.  I suggest holding off
>>> discussing this until January, when I should have the members of the
design
>>> team all on board.  Then you can make your case to all of the above, and
>>> we'll see if I'm in the rough here.
>>
>> While leaving most of the discussion for January, I'll just say that
>> what Stephen wants and what Heather wants don't have to be mutually
>> exclusive. 
>
> Right. Happiness is entirely possible:-)
>
>> Stephen's point isn't that there should be no errata
>> posted, but that the system for having arbitrary people post errata
>> should go away. 
>
> No. The part I want to go away is that each posted erratum consumes
> effort for folks other than the poster. (Incl. me:-) I do want anyone
> (without needing authorization) to be able to post a comment.
>
>> It's certainly workable that comments that stream
>> controllers (or their delegates) mark as important could then be shown
>> through an "errata" link.  My guess is that that'd make both Stephen
>> and Heather happy (with the nice effect of making me happy as well).
>
> That'd be fine. I'd prefer a vote-up/down system myself for anyone with
> a datatracker account maybe (for IETF stream) but there are ways in
> which this can be crowdsourced and produce a better outcome and still
> use off the shelf open-source I bet.
>
>

OK, so, noting that we're not really talking about this now, I've tried
to capture the core concept offered so that when we do talk about it in
a few weeks, we can start from the summary.  See:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/wiki/doku.php?id=erratasystem:rethink

- -Heather


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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUmbUVAAoJEER/xjINbZoGyoUH/ivGoi5fynwqViursYyI4evr
RXyT9S/r9L5Ygcoofey7RIKSO6e+g7o/lSjmpozqMkUf7LexEIaCD7KhHF2b1J0L
foyIJglqSHTzz7t/x20UOb9ngbS42nlt9ihys+y372wXWOSnDrMZn91NyYeCPJK1
AhM+P9SrbLW9YMRbdRSg9w356ht+X4/wXSUzGjOVfuCbNfs8iGzBOlqs/P1j9TLT
GsMmaUNJd9ISp9Soebt3uNabYCfF9Qimq34O5uqO82oPjNuK2S0CKkPDZ5qT3xH7
heoZhBDFIqN4enzT3wnWhzgI3UBUsVAcDDq0vbeOxIAopSW98VyVCNWFAH7bY2c=
=vx3A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----