IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is better -- why are we so shy?

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Wed, 01 March 2017 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
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 E5E98120724 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:14:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 eoOzF3AynRqs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:14:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4AFF12968A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:14:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QBGJ9U1RDS00JWDH@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:09:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01QBGA77DHM80005AQ@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:09:36 -0800 (PST)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01QBGJ9S1V7C0005AQ@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:05:34 -0800
Subject: Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is better -- why are we so shy?
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:41 +1300" <f2203a9d-595e-19cd-a7b9-2ccaa814f8f9@gmail.com>
References: <14476.1488384266@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CAOdDvNo0x9mVeqc9a5yGbB6yKDnrQVgoKfq_Q8HSfpFv1BmJ=A@mail.gmail.com> <f2203a9d-595e-19cd-a7b9-2ccaa814f8f9@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aILN4T2KVY8BaYv_1uLvHY42jWo>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 20:14:43 -0000

> > > For the third time in two days I find myself, when asking others for
> > > opinionsabout some text, pointing at github commit logs.  With the beautiful
> > > makefiles we often have, one can't even depend upon having a formatted .txt
> > > version there!

...

> The details of that discussion probably belong on ietf-and-github@ietf.org,
> but I must point out that this way of working *excludes* from the
> discussion WG participants who don't grok github. Substantial issues
> need to be discussed on the mailing list and substantial (non-typo)
> revisions need to be posted as I-Ds.

+1 on all points. Additionally, I've observed a seeming reluctance to update
drafts for small stuff, independent of the use or non-use of github.

Cases where it's actually best to withhold an update are quite rare, so having
this practice as a default really needs to go away.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email