ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft discussion lists

2014-09-02 08:28:43

Melinda Shore <melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
    > days.  Be that as it may, I was doing the librarianship thing during a
    > time when open vs. closed stacks was a highly contested question, and
    > one argument that was reliably and inevitably advanced in favor of open
    > stacks was that of the value of "tripping over a book in the stacks."
    > That is to say, there were a lot of people who felt there was value in
    > introducing some (pseudo-) randomness into the process, such that a
    > person looking for information on a particular topic accidentally came
    > across something unrelated and it triggered something innovative.  In
    > the IETF context I do worry a bit that overspecialization and "silos"
    > are leading to situations in which we're missing connections and
    > related but perhaps orthogonal work.  I see that happening quite a bit
    > on middlebox-related topics and I'm suspicious that peeling nearly all
    > draft discussion off a general mailing list might lead to an increase
    > in missed connections.

I rather agree.  I would prefer that a random draft, if it doesn't have *WG*
in it, ought to have *AREANAME*, and the appropriate area list is the right
place.
We already have draft-name(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org alias as well, but 
that's not an
open, archived list.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



Attachment: pgputQmqSPpka.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>