Whoops, I lost a 'not'
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
Cc: "Abdussalam Baryun" <abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; "ietf"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Lixia Zhang" <lixia(_at_)cs(_dot_)ucla(_dot_)edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 6:38 PM
On 2/3/2013 10:28 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'm not sure I've ever been involved with a WG where you could
have
gotten consensus on any of the above enough to publish it. Nor
can
I
think of many WGs that have the excess energy to do this work.
Even
getting consensus on a summary of where you ended up is quite
tricky.
Getting consensus on the details of a history is much more difficult
than on a technical spec...
So don't try.
There is an I-D in IDR which recorded a substantial part of the history
but it was the AD, and NOT the WG, that was not happy with it so it is
currently in - well, I don't know what state (now if we had a summary of
the status of I-Ds adopted by a WG published each month, as was recently
suggested on this list, well, then, I would have the status off pat:-)
Tom Petch
What I think /is/ possible, however, is to establish a "history of"
wiki, to which participants can contribute their views.
Moderate it, to limit the noise. Solicit and vet contributions from
principals, to seed the data with credible material.
Then let historians worry about synthesizing this source data into
something more coherent (and biased, and ...)
But at least the raw narrative of motivated principals will have
been
captured.
In terms of administrative overhead, there isn't much, other than
creating a separate page for each activity.
d/