(Setting Reply-To once again - lets please reduce the crossposting and
move the whole conversation onto tools-discuss@)
I'm going to take up part of Carsten's argument now, attempting to wear
no hats.
I personally don't want a "delete n days after creation" type of policy.
I could accept (and probably support) a "delete after n days of
inactivity" policy where n was large - at least two meeting-cycles
large, if not larger.
This tool is being used for other things than working group minuting.
There are teams that I am on that have used notes as places to develop
things like tools implementation plans - the notes served a longer than
a few (even 30) days purpose until the effort finished. I can see the
same being useful for design teams, where the real artifacts that come
out are emails to the list and drafts. The expectation, in my opinion,
is that these should be expected to be there for awhile, but not _forever_.
What I don't think is ok is carrying the need to redirect these urls a
few years from now when the technology under them has moved on. URLs
into this service shouldn't be placed in RFCs, giving us the burden to
preserve the content and its location forever.
Putting my tools team hat back on - hedgedoc does not (to my knowledge)
support this autodelete concept at this time. We could make a feature
request whether or not it ends up being something we decide to use. But
should we decide to have such a delete policy, it would be some time
before it is implemented.
RjS
On 9/16/21 9:47 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
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.
Mark,
sometimes it is absolutely necessary to express how a discourse makes one feel.
Yes, this discussion is frustrating and unlikely to lead anywhere good, and I have to choose my battles.
I made my points, and I will shut up now.
Grüße, Carsten
