On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:38:29PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
farther, and say that the whole endeavor should be. But having at least
a record from individauls about what *they* said or meant is, I suppose,
not unreasonable.
Indeed. And this (and the rest of the posts in this thread) in fact
provide such a record, automatically.
Historians overwhelmingly prefer primary sources, and the IETF (at
least in recent years) is obliging: we have minutes of meetings, full
recordings of the audio streams, and long and well-maintained mailing
list archives. Historians who wish to figure out the history of some
bit of protocol have ample resources. I see no reason whatever for
WGs to produce a self-congratulatory (or soul-searching) documents
talking about how they managed to do something. An obsession with
meta-meta-meta-process is a sure sign of organizational morbidity.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com