Re: Old directions in social media.

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 1/6/21 10:18 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>
> I’m not really wanting to get dragged into this debate … but I think 
> that it might be interesting to try and objectively compare the 
> quality of the documents produced by WGs making use of github vs those 
> just using email.
>
> One swallow does not a summer make, but I note that the 4 QUIC 
> documents that are in IESG review all seem to be exceptionally 
> polished and well written, and I understand that the QUIC WG has a 
> strong Github based editing process. Of course, there could be many 
> factors as to why this is (e.g., maybe the editors are native English 
> speakers, these documents probably have had more review and 
> discussion) but it also seems plausible that easier collaborative 
> editing/updates might be a factor in the high quality output from the WG.
>
>
I'm fairly certain that it has far more to do with who is 
authoring/editing the documents than any tools. My favorite whipping boy 
rfc 8226 is terrible and woefully underspecified, and when that was 
pointed out in last call, it got aggressive push back. Tools are not 
going to change that sort of problem. What we'd need is AI's that can 
emulate the normative language and poke holes in it. Sometimes the I's 
are up to the task but too often they are not, or are ignored.

Mike