Re: Old directions in social media.

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 08 January 2021 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26893A0D48 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 05:08:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uAXWa4eJkRqt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 05:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 883AC3A0D2B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 05:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dc939.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.201.57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DC3MD0SlCzyv3; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:08:40 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: Old directions in social media.
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR08MB37169D6548BCFA6FF6543B01FAAE0@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 14:08:39 +0100
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 631804119.473579-492a65e0261be0475cff40974f8f94ce
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1229C895-99B9-4519-AFB9-E71AC33B9119@tzi.org>
References: <CAMm+Lwg1-pxKU8vMinFDUbVca52VgFzTOOSJMnJjaUJvF6PLew@mail.gmail.com> <062d01d6e387$39c46270$ad4d2750$@acm.org> <CAJU8_nWD3MwLs5aVNMi_3LqZysrfjv0N7N3ujV-zhqxiFh3tsA@mail.gmail.com> <788651ca-0c84-7a54-9c48-b962faed635f@network-heretics.com> <CAJU8_nXSE-E2AVrJnqe5ZifR+qGhXscNCFXQRDj_GU1r=hNOyw@mail.gmail.com> <70416f47-7c31-8571-02ce-f95ff386d54f@network-heretics.com> <X/TtgTtl02AMyns8@mit.edu> <AM0PR08MB371623409DE8AB03CC667234FAD00@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <866b1357-ec50-7765-4277-fd4fba8d793e@network-heretics.com> <AM0PR08MB37166B8E57C293917737D9D6FAD00@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <d8454121-f6fb-3cbb-3149-656e20efce96@joelhalpern.com> <AM0PR08MB3716C960817BCCFEE4F9F911FAAF0@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <edf8225b-d005-4f99-b96f-41bc49633da3@joelhalpern.com> <AM0PR08MB37169778B08F3F83413194B0FAAF0@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <01RU3E1RGXW4004QVR@mauve.mrochek.com> <e3b4e262-9d4d-2c5c-5588-67d37d8cedc4@mtcc.com> <AM0PR08MB3716E884A0BF30D161E26750FAAE0@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <93C95733-567C-4701-BAF6-60BA6DD40C76@tzi.org> <AM0PR08MB37169D6548BCFA6FF6543B01FAAE0@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RA-Vn7Z0tzp4O7fsKht-tb8e85o>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 13:08:44 -0000

On 2021-01-08, at 14:04, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> I guess we have different expectations of how much time a reviewer should spend on their document review.
> 
> With relevance to this discussion the question is: did the use of tools like Github make your review activities more or less difficult to do this type of "background check”?

Normally, I’d check out the repo and look at the most recent commits for the general area that I have questions about — that might lead me to pull requests and the issues they close.  A keyword search in the issues might also yield (as I would do in the mailing list).

Independent of github vs. mail, that obviously can be done for one or two issues, not for 30.
(If there are 30 issues where I disagree with the document, maybe we have greater problems.)

Grüße, Carsten