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

"Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 23 December 2014 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <rse@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: errata-design@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: errata-design@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186AE181243 for <errata-design@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:52:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SMlL7yX7tOwi for <errata-design@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::28]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35AF18047D for <errata-design@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C42C1E5A54; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:52:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xBet6ibpPvK2; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:52:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Heathers-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [98.125.220.142]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAA9C1E5A4F; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:52:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54999DE8.7030104@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 08:52:56 -0800
From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, errata-design@rfc-editor.org
References: <5494555A.7010608@rfc-editor.org> <54949BFD.1040007@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <54949BFD.1040007@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030001020004090400020605"
Subject: Re: [Errata-design] sanity notwithstanding...
X-BeenThere: errata-design@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <errata-design.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/errata-design>, <mailto:errata-design-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/errata-design/>
List-Post: <mailto:errata-design@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:errata-design-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/errata-design>, <mailto:errata-design-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:52:21 -0000

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

On 12/19/14 1:43 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 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.

Good idea.

> 
> - 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?"

Of course, that means we need to understand what "good enough" actually is.

> 
> - 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 can agree with that.  I'd rather not have yet another massive code
writing/re-writing project on anyone's plate.

> 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 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.

Thanks,
Heather

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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUmZ3oAAoJEER/xjINbZoGQ+cH/2Z1iBau7EIIQTjWzA8jT4Bi
3K5SKsaOOQXFKCr7WI7lAZQeP1i3PwiQYFEKX2OmJhnHj6P1pDfM+1uqqdMouRIE
gnVzA2yN9gYkyA4+z3n5eWTXvRdYnKDPgAGQ10360DYBFlA+tivjm4XOuNZbGbxE
6FfqOlDM55rhosBOFHJZ4QoQMeoXbx6jUhHh5oOwksojdI+jy00B5MDbtaZYDqo1
iuKrvQP0eFGtuWau56vzUJVIpxkIWwb3dNckpnID01ZpWu9ya9IGoLzT/T6SmMM4
lhcAIxMUKwBoqOu/C8aCVoYw1s2CxrFi3fBmrkQ1QC3VUG4PxyR+1kSb8L8TOE0=
=/d+M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----