Re: [Rfced-future] [rfc-i] RSWG & AUTH48 (was Re: [admin-discuss] Public archival of AUTH48 communications)

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 07:51:46AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > Let me rephrase: How would you describe the responsibitiles and
> > accountabilities to improve the process ?
> > 
> > "Make it public and let them come" ?
> 
> Yes.
> Those who truly care about an RFC-to-be are likely to come if we don’t make access too onerous.

Not necessarily those who might have the best input though.

Aka: this can IMHO only be a secondary add-on option and
must not replace some primary responsibility of authors/AD/shepherd/rfc-editor
to alert the right expert/groups from whom to explicitly seek
input if/when such a situation arises during AUTH48.

> > ("All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department…")
> 
> Yes, but the first thing to alert you is the status change on the I-D.
> You have subscribed to the status changes, no?

I am not aware of any status changes during auth48 to be publically available.
But lets assume we would add that.

Which publically available status change notification system are you
referring to ? All events on planet earth, the just slightly less
poluted i-d-announce mailing list or something more specific i can
easily subscribe to. I am not aware of the latter.

Cheers
    Toerless
> 
> Grüße, Carsten

-- 
---
[e-mail]