Carsten, It has been an informal tool for some time. I (along with others, apparently) am concerned about it becoming a formal dependency by stealth, consuming resources and causing confusion. If you have use cases for it, that's great -- bring them up and we can have a discussion about whether they should be supported (with the corresponding dedication of resources). You haven't done that, though - you seem to be assuming that because you've used an informal tool in a particular way in the past, that will automatically be supported on an ongoing basis. In doing so, you've now also characterised others' positions in a disparaging way and expressed cynicism about the IETF process. I understand you may be frustrated, but I don't think doing so is constructive. Cheers, > On 17 Sep 2021, at 12:15 pm, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2021-09-17, at 01:40, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 2) If folks want to use the tools for something else, great. But that does not create an obligation on the IETF to make the tool behave differently. If there is some other use case that is needed, either use some other tool, or convince the IETF that we need a tool to support the use case you have. > > Joel, > > You are falling prey to an availability bias here. > > You have only ever been using that tool for minutes, so you think the tool needs to be changed to more closely follow some random thinking about minutes. > I don’t care that much whether the IETF destroys its draft minutes, because I do know to back up those drafts that I’ll likely need. > > But leading this discussion in complete disregard for the other uses of this tool is exactly the kind of “I don’t understand this, so let’s break it” thinking that has recently become so characteristic of IETF process discussions. > > Grüße, Carsten > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
