At 07:35 PM 9/2/2014, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:38 AM, Dave Cridland
<<mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net> wrote:
So we'll only discuss ideas that are written up as drafts, and we'll only
discuss them in a working group, and we'll only create a working group around
drafts that have traction, and we'll only consider a draft to have traction
if there's discussion, and we'll only discuss them in a working group, and ...
No. But if someone takes the time to write a draft, Mike wants us to provide a
place to discuss it. From my perspective, that isn?t silly.
Yup - there are at least a few recent cases where there aren't good defaults in
place for where to post for a draft, and where asking the author's wasn't
really definitive.
There's also the point that for some of those, I *really* don't want to join
the wider mailing list as the S/N ratio is poor or simply isn't of great
interest to me regularly. Finally, there's the whole "exactly which subject
line corresponds to comments on the draft and why did it change 5 times since
the original post?" problem.
All of these can be worked around, but at the cost of additional already scarce
reading/reviewing time.
The march of IDs is unrelenting. I'd *really* like it if I didn't have to
track down an author just to figure out where the document is being discussed.
Things like
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johndoe-http2-large-header-blocks/ don't
help the problem.
Later, Mike