IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] Time in States on Datatracker

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Thu, 16 June 2022 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D2CC14CF05 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 02:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7THquzIV7sZW for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 02:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 CD9DDC14F733 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 02:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1c88:e8ae:82ba:5180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A7EC1F0496; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:43:28 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1655372609; bh=q9MpQ1txsPa9ANMuQrCITfQG3P24lxNoxodvTscVW40=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=qYS0lYiF8mEmukHGJzLz5KlcZ3p+w24NPWwckeePXudUBFx47k5k9fDnGeVYvi/PA qCzC6XUWNHqE3Rk6VO8NuBRY4uiwINpcddLmzBK9+n8hYdK9VUAiUIwRMpuTlSB5mt P4sKkjZHTqaPy+RCZCtwlDhXYnX2akvSBYOqqMUg=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F67EB34F-35CF-46C2-AB60-2266E75413B4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <45481F25AF37BD727A8438E9@PSB>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:43:28 +0300
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Greg Wood <ghwood@staff.ietf.org>, tools-discuss@ietf.org, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <97BCB3A9-B87B-4DA1-8652-78BBF6EB7645@eggert.org>
References: <3C6B878C-E03E-49BC-9880-2F707D3EBCEC@gmail.com> <4bc8a25c-0a87-3db7-1b24-4caa4d1379ac@nostrum.com> <37156F61-D95C-42F7-97EE-C0830CA1A710@gmail.com> <E080D53E-936B-47B8-B2EA-B3E2EC797624@staff.ietf.org> <142B72FC-0E15-434D-AEC8-C211A3110F3E@gmail.com> <45481F25AF37BD727A8438E9@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 4A7EC1F0496.A4BFE
X-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/65JlaPkvpYzHbQY2kcQjjQI9e64>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Time in States on Datatracker
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 09:43:57 -0000

Hi,

On 2022-6-16, at 11:39, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> More broadly, would it be useful to ask that every change that
> might result in a reduction in functionality (or in obvious
> access to information) be announced to the community in advance
> with an opportunity for comment rather than deployed,
> effectively seeing if anyone screaming in agony?

I think this would really slow down development of the tools. I much prefer an approach where we let the volunteers improve things, and if stuff gets inadvertently broken, it gets fixed again. (A fix for this one is queued up already.)

>  If nothing
> else and with respect to Lars (and I generally agree with his
> design taste), making design decisions based on "downward
> pressure" is a little bit more top-down than the IETF is
> supposed to operate.  That is especially problematic when the
> pressure and decisions are invisible to the community until
> after the fact.

Just to be clear, I'm not wearing any leadership hat here. I'm a tools volunteer that is trying to make a tool work better.

Thanks,
Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email