Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 7/10/18 8:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 11/07/2018 08:45, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> ....
>> Others seem to be arguing that the RFC series should in fact welcome
>> anything on any topic,
> 
> Really? I haven't seen that and it seems like a strawman to me.
> 
> The Independent stream has criteria that have already been mentioned
> here; relevance to the Internet and surviving peer review are among them.
> 
>> and as long as they can find someone willing to
>> let them in, there's no reason they shouldn't be in the RFC series too
>> (i.e. we shouldn't prohibit people "from publishing RFCs when they
>> want to do so and find it valuable to do so").  It is an interesting
>> question whether, if I wanted to publish an RFC about Wittgenstein's
>> remarks on colour, whether the ISE would consider it.  We do have the
>> April 1st ones, after all.
> 
> But even they are tested for relevance to the Internet and are peer
> reviewed, just not in public for fairly obvious reasons.

In what sense are Independent Stream documents peer reviewed?

At a higher level, is there a good definition of "peer review" so that
we can understand how documents from the various streams map to that
definition?

Peter