On May 31, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 01/06/2012 00:04, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Works for me, other than it should not be a "wiki". It should have one
editor who takes proposed changes from the community the same way we do
it now. Not all suggestions from this community, even from individuals
in the leadership, are ones that should appear in such a document.
In practice, if this is to be a living document then it should be open for
inspection and poking rather than preserved in formaldehyde and put in a
display case, only to be opened occasionally when the curator decides the
glass needs some dusting. That way leads to sclerosis.
Thank you for that most colorful analogy. :-) What I proposed is exactly what
we are doing now, except that the changes would appear on the web page instead
of an Internet-Draft and, five years later, an RFC. Are you saying that the
current system (which you have not commented on until now) is sclerotic (a word
that I have wanted to use since I learned it in high school)?
Please put it on a wiki and put all changes through a lightweight review
system. If someone makes a change which doesn't work, then it can be
reverted quickly and easily. This approach is much more in line with the
ietf approach of informality / asking for forgiveness rather than
permission / rough consensus + running code / etc.
In the IETF approach, only the authors of an Internet-Draft can change the
contents of that draft. I hope you are not proposing a change to that as well.
--Paul Hoffman