>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Mmm. I have some significant accessibility concerns with that
>> if you expect me to review the documents. I think that's a
>> small (although probably impossible at the current point)
>> matter of technology.
Dave> Sam,
Dave> Thank you for raising this basic point. Since the IETF
Dave> seeks the widest possible availability for its documents, it
Dave> might help discussion about format choices to understand how
Dave> your ability to review documents is affected.
Hi. I was actually not trying to raise the general issue of how
accessible the IETF should make its documents.
I was simply trying to raise the practical issue that while I'm on the
IESG, I will hold a discuss if I cannot understand some aspect of a
document well enough to review it.
It's not trying to make a political statement, just that I've been asked to do a job by the nomcom and I will try and do that job.
Naturally should I hold such a discuss I'd work with the authors to
try and figure out enough detail to quickly understand their document.
I think the general issue is important but should be examined in the
broader context of the document format issue.
However I'd like to wait and see if we're going to actually do
anything about the broader issue before spending cycles on this
question. I proposed a specific set of steps that the proponents
could take to conduct an experiment; so far no one has disagreed with
that proposal. So let's see if it looks like people are going to try
that approach. If so, I agree this would be an important thing to at
least start thinking about. It may well not matter for the
experiment, but it may matter long-term.
If anyone wants to chat about document accessibility in person I'd be
happy to do so. I just would rather not get into a long email
discussion right now.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf