Re: Old directions in social media.

Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> Tue, 05 January 2021 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <krose@krose.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 253583A1078 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 09:47:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=krose.org
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 ewZTUzT231Ue for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 09:47:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf29.google.com (mail-qv1-xf29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 940213A1053 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 09:47:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf29.google.com with SMTP id az16so23150qvb.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 09:47:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N3n51jZofOk5Do0BTrknsHCCRtDBDEsnVDIferh9x60=; b=X8FOkNyS66QKkyYgovvV2XUC9wMRNJGULb/IBgXZMT6Fd3kCPNGjPSJiUcd4VB9xU2 ZG8MtBdIPG7dH6cgzrnE1JNS881IyWsIh4+v4kf8Y2WfGCjpZx7jAt+nx48UkWezR+Ne 5Q75Q2eHJ15B8QKzZ7BGnHFHVRTM5+Eid1Jhk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N3n51jZofOk5Do0BTrknsHCCRtDBDEsnVDIferh9x60=; b=NOjfYzji8/W/CBaUcUPbLna4ybDHn0EGZANZRb4Xu0xHtpGryP78i1AuqHd/KCFZce Xxp0A+U5pFP3xtdogZtmSWWdkfwPDXp6061pNJhWKutF5fWObRG6f5MDg01aKtdZyp6X I4lKpB16jF7JpEmHLSCBZLQCaq2ZyZJ2CaU+ZwPrx6LAnZau4/a/B9FgeJ7azaiuT9XN rqcs4sW9ZU0LyCDozdbKExwF2yUcKcaObkFNxXTDCaUKiph3QVx2EPsS9ofM77oXnqV2 DtqSAkih4TWScGVZyFJ1AicCNRdZ1MX0CYTkTTwYVq2bM9o8Tf9MQUSR6UFdY5rlhk7z P4IQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530YjZMKdKH0RdOyMBIWtdSWXftY3nwW4mNKjlOSkyAcu7poUTGa eoS4OGWlyDRAo2ehdlil0IFF7iR5tQbWZZN25WY0uA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyj1u+3MZdfYrvLBdafY73TeaubkPNQR1Rej3cFeSFWWTkXsMbzj/zUPYttz4hlwBYUBpndcj5sYx+RuyXs2no=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:b21e:: with SMTP id x30mr279997qvd.21.1609868825593; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 09:47:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMm+Lwg1-pxKU8vMinFDUbVca52VgFzTOOSJMnJjaUJvF6PLew@mail.gmail.com> <519a0e4d-7102-fac8-1517-04c590a80080@network-heretics.com> <CAJU8_nUU0Km_YtgpWbLF-JVQVUXFYvxBNBYbzaLOXBqQyvvUaA@mail.gmail.com> <062d01d6e387$39c46270$ad4d2750$@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <062d01d6e387$39c46270$ad4d2750$@acm.org>
From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 12:46:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nWD3MwLs5aVNMi_3LqZysrfjv0N7N3ujV-zhqxiFh3tsA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Old directions in social media.
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007c1f6905b82acba3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pUwDLi-ky-dvj1mRUUQiTH68O5c>
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: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 17:47:08 -0000

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:21 PM Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:

> It may be a fine way for a group to develop a publicly available
> specification that group members
>
> implement in an interoperable way, but why should the IETF have anything
> to do with it, if the
> group process doesn’t admit the typical IETF cross-area industry-wide
> review by those who are
> not so intimately familiar with the detailed vocabulary of the group’s
> specification to be in a position
>
> to be able & willing to couch their questions in terms of a “Pull Request”?
>

There are still two separate last calls for all WG documents: WGLC and IETF
LC. Even if you never followed the issues or performed periodic reviews of
document revisions prior to those checkpoints, you can always do it then.
Again, no one in any WG is required to interact with GitHub to contribute.
That contribution is easier for those who *do* use GitHub is not a
justification for prohibiting use of those tools. Equality of contribution
across the board has never been an explicit goal, and indeed contributions
to a document have always been dominated by one or a few authors who put in
a lot more work than everyone else.

Without referencing GitHub, what objective standard for access are you
advocating for, and how does the use of GitHub uniquely impact that
negatively?

Kyle