On 1/7/21 9:27 AM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Speaking as 30 year IETF participant, including four years as an apps AD and many stints as a WG chair, this is not now and has never been my experience. I could not even begin count the number of times I've had to review mailing list discussions as part of reviewing a draft.
I hope that you would agree that that exercise is much akin to looking for needles in haystacks, right? That's why I'm saying that an editing audit trail to establish the "why" would be useful, and could hopefully narrow the search space substantially, if not answer those questions outright.
This was especially true when performing cross-area reviews as an AD, where let's just say that asking questions about contentious issues without being intimately familiar with the background was not a recipe for success. And in the past month or so, while participating in DMARC and EMAILCORE, I've been compelled to dig into the archives of various lists at least a dozen times, maybe more.
What is your take of the current regimen in DMARC of requiring issues to be opened on the issue tracker and only discussed when the chairs get around to it? I've never seen that before, but I've been MIA for quite a while too. For one, it requires active participation by the chairs which has been... its own problem. But it also causes a weird flow given the FIFO nature of an issues tracker. That was my first experience with the IETF issues tracker, and frankly it left me with the feeling that it was an easy way for chairs to just dismiss an issue in hopes the person with the issue forgets about it.
Mike
