IETF Logo Mail Archive

Why we have situated software (Re: A sad farewell)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 06 November 2020 19:18 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 376B93A0B62 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:18:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 Lpus_SwGklLf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:18:53 -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 0C47A3A0B66 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (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 4CSVYR0y8PzyRk; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 20:18:51 +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: Why we have situated software (Re: A sad farewell)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKq15vcRAu8VrDmZ-44z3vy8r=1Rx-AA0Xwsg84JFRjpX+=Ypg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 20:18:50 +0100
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 626383130.593304-540d72fcb19b35108e80440e0a207c05
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7D18184B-E201-4427-BB78-876144DA1C51@tzi.org>
References: <b0ca070f-dd1f-1b8d-940c-7e4c57ea8393@cisco.com> <5fa3ffbe.1c69fb81.a621e.78ba@mx.google.com> <MN2PR15MB3103C6573396210E2CA7274D97EE0@MN2PR15MB3103.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <E971F6B0-EFF1-4E1D-8CCB-80FA7FEB722D@gmail.com> <20201105174127.GF1750809@mit.edu> <6f1fcd3a-c3cf-a9a7-7aaf-af327d337f43@mnt.se> <CAKq15vcBBGhwAd76LEQDhEa+e1XcTr2HGnmJw9J9y9znbjFMAw@mail.gmail.com> <174AC0A1-77B5-4B6B-AD9D-7C9FB6023BC1@episteme.net> <CAKq15vc947QrG0KgTdP2kiLpE_8YXbEWMZfyFqaGRdJ4me-Mxg@mail.gmail.com> <CE739672-72C4-44B7-821A-99AE400F574C@akamai.com> <CAKq15vdEVfk4ST+WEk06hdgVxMtUU=GKwZwTjtoUSxvEouHRfg@mail.gmail.com> <6FCC5D7B-2EDC-4191-AA0F-BE91211B9B07@akamai.com> <CAKq15vcRAu8VrDmZ-44z3vy8r=1Rx-AA0Xwsg84JFRjpX+=Ypg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WVTF13R9C7igwWTl2WkfqO4gfT4>
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, 06 Nov 2020 19:18:55 -0000

On 2020-11-06, at 02:22, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> I was pointing out a fundamental. It doesn't help that authors can submit documents in other forms than XML if authors get back comments, suggestions in another form.  Using Git to manage document edits also implies you've agreed to the input format.

Programmers are used to getting comments in other forms than their input language.
They write “a < 1” and get back a comment that the program crashes now and then.

It is not productive to put the onus of dealing with an input format on the reviewers.  They should have an easy time.  It is the authors that have to bear the main load of dealing with comments.  (That is a simple math issue, at least if you agree that we should have more reviewers on a document than authors.)

I can’t believe the discussion of a serious organizational and social problem is degenerating into a discussion of technical issues again.  I’ve changed the subject, but of course I can’t do that retroactively for the other messages that are off-topic for the main thread.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email