--On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 16:15 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I worried about that before sending my note, but decided that
an invented example was not persuausive. If there's a fault,
it's "ours" for not making the convention a bit more apparent
to newcomers. That's what needs fixing.
+1
And, of course, a modification to the tool that would explain
the convention and ask "are you sure" (as I think you and John
Levine suggested), would provide the desired education without
giving anyone an excuse to feel beaten up on.
--On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:45 +0900 Randy Bush
<randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
more code, more bugs, more barriers. and this will increase
the quality of the content how?
If we assume that not everyone has time to open every
announcement and read the abstract, then helping people figure
out which drafts they should be trying to follow might improve
the quality of review by improving efficiency and the time that
could be spent on reviews as compared to mail-filtering. I
assume the IETF still believes that more review by people with
relevant expertise and perspective is desirable and improves
content/output quality.
john