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

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Michael Richardson
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> For the third time in two days I find myself, when asking others for opinions
> about 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!
>
> This is not a rant for or against git or github, but rather about what I
> perceive as a shyness about posting intermediate versions of Internet Drafts
> to the datatracker.
>
> I understand that in academia, they never like letting half-baked ideas out,
> and so the -00 that we see from academics are often overdue and overly
> polished.  I know I can't fight that, but at least the -01, etc. could be
> issued faster?
>
> I've even heard some push back from people along the lines of, "wow, that ID
> has 27 revisions, is it really stable?", and my feelings have often been more
> along the lines of, "wow, that revision has 27 revisions, the authors are
> really keen and responsive".
>
> I appreciate for some reviewers that having more revisions implies that they
> think they have to look at the text more often.
>
> But given the diff utilities, it shouldn't matter how many revisions there
> were before times you look, as you can just skip the intermediate versions.

+1 and I'd rather save subsequent reviewers from picking up on the
same issues that have already been identified.  I do have WGs post
revisions at several stages once it gets to AD review & IESG
processing for that reason and versions are cheap ;-)

>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen