ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [IETF] Travel/Attendees list FAQ

2011-12-08 10:46:28


On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:

On Dec 8, 2011, at 8:31 AM, David Morris wrote:



On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:

On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

Actually, I meant wiki according to its classic, collaborative meaning:

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki>

What you folks are describing is a web page, not really a wiki.

Exactly, and that is appropriate for something whose primary target is 
organizations that are giving large amounts of money and time to the 
IETF. A "collaborative page" can easily go sideways with contributors 
who don't understand the parameters of what is meant to be there. In 
many cases such as WGs, such sideways motion is fine; for a page whose 
audience are often people who don't know about the IETF but are tasked 
with deciding whether or not to give us significant financial support.

Perhaps, but in a wiki context repair is easy as any reasonable wiki
software will provide a history.  

What is the greater additional value of having to have someone who 
watches the wiki and reverts changes over that same person being listed 
on the static page as "if you have questions or suggestions about this 
page, please send mail to <real human's name>"?

Difference is whether the community is better served by a fail open or
fail closed approach. I don't believe active watching is required. I think
the value of informed contributions without waiting for the real human
to review and provide the update. Even active review is less henious in
terms of work load in a context where we expect updates, even errors,
to be contributed with best intentions.

A Hybrid is another possiblity ... a 'fact' page with limited edit
could be the parent of the community edited content. Certainly not
an expensive experiment?


In addition, at least one proposal
was that editing be limited to some form of registered users which
should also mean that abuse can be mitigated.


Please note that I wasn't talking about abuse, I was talking about 
misunderstanding. The latter seems very likely in our crowd, given our 
propensity to mistake implementations for requirements, for example.



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf