Dave,
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In other words, Brian, by running the experiment, in its current
form, you are
ensuring that meaningful changes can't be made without disruption.
I truly don't get your concern. We have mechanisms today to get
operational material onto the IETF web site. We won't be siwtching
those mechanisms off while running the ION experiment. If, which
Then I can't figure out what goes into the 'experiment' and what
doesn't. It sounds as if this becomes redundant -- ie, extra -- effort.
That reduces the incentive to use it.
As the person who created the existing "Operational Notes" page, and
submitted one of the two draft IONs, I found the very minor extra effort
to use a decent shared-authoring version management system well worth
it. Kudos to the SVN people and to Henrik, of course.
I doubt, we decide IONs aren't a success, we will simply post the
ION material to the web site in the current way. If they are a success,
we'll consolidate the ION mechanism in the light of experience.
I don't see disruption either way.
"consolidate" does not mean making changes, or "changes" doesn't mean
disruption?
Well, if change means disruption, I experience disruption most days of
the week ;-). My point is that the changes involved will all be at noise
level.
Enough. Happy holidays to all!
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf