On 21:06 13/01/03, John C Klensin said:
--On Monday, 13 January, 2003 17:23 +0100 jfcm <info(_at_)utel(_dot_)net>
wrote:
> Dear John,
> I am afraid that at this stage (e-mail + 40 or so years)
> telling someone to read the archives has no meaning. And
> telling him to post if he has a _new_idea either.
You are entitled to your opinion. I was only trying to suggest
that people who come to the IETF list, and propose the same old,
failed, ideas as if they had just received a relevation from on
high are likely to get some resistance... and to explain that
resistance.
I know and I agree. My point is 40 years of reading is somewhat long and
uncertain.
> Could we not think of an FPS (frequently proposed solutions)
> where each defeated "solutions" would be listed and quickly
> discussed. There would be two good reasons:
>
> 1. to provide a true list of what has been proposed. It would
> save time to all and provide a good negative check list for
> those with an idea. At least it would be new to the FPS: it
> would be added or used.
>
> 2. very often the roots of the true solution is something
> which has been half thought and overlooked. Or something
> triggered in someone's mind by another idea.
Variations on this idea have been proposed to the IESG and IAB
several times, and have not gone anywhere. I'll leave
explanations as to why to someone else, but at a minimum, there
has been a shortage of volunteers to maintain a "dumb ideas
archive" (I know, that isn't quite what you said) and a shortage
of entities willing to shield such volunteers from liability.
hmmmm. Let take it another way. Would it help if we set-up
a place where each proposition could be registered in a few lines
by the proposer or dead ends documented by old-timers?
Instead of flaming proposers, they could just advise them to
register their propositions first. The flaming would still be here
but the register would be built.
As to know if it would be a dumb or a too brillant ideas archive :-)
jfc