Re: [Rfced-future] Welcome to the RFC Editor Future Development Program

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

> As I suggested in my response to Larry, perhaps this is a rat hole that should
> be avoided at this point in the discussion?

That's fine. I just meant AUTH48 as an example of a "small" problem.
Feel free to propose a smaller (non-)rathole that would make the
Editor job less onerous and the qualifications more fillable.

> >>> On 4/1/2020 5:38 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> >>>> I think the question is how big a scope of "solutions" should be taken on.
> >>>> At the "large scope" are changes to the nature of RFCs and the
> >>>> series At the "small scope" end I'd suggest -- without any other change -- 
> >>>> focusing on the "AUTH48" status since 48 hours and only the authors 
> >>>>cannot proofread everything that needs proofreading.
> >>>>
> >>>> (History RFC2616 had several errors that were due to bugs in the
> >>>> process of converting Word to text/plain)
> >>>>
> >>>> I can't tell from the posts and intro material what level of changes to
> >>>> the process you'd want to contemplate.
--
https://LarryMasinter.net 
https://going-remote.info 

About rats:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/science/coronavirus-animals-wildlife-goats.html