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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> 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.

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.  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.  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).

Barry