On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 9/16/11 12:22 , Keith Moore wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see these ass "Wikis" but basically "blog style" flat
>>> display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially
>>> for the user ("this way") upon user ("not always") follow ups.
>>>
>>> A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps
>>> even the context. I don't think that is a good idea for RFCs.
>>
>> I'm thinking in terms of a hybrid Wiki where the RFC content is
>> static but the discussion is maintainable as a Wiki and can be
>> visually associated with the RFC content. You'd also want the RFC
>> content to be clearly distinguished from the discussion.
>
> One of the assumptions here is that discussion without editorial
> discretion can add color to static informaion. While the case for that
> can certainly be made, we have abundant evidence of it not doing so in
> the context of ietf mailing lists.
we have abundant evidence of there being color added in the context of ietf mailing lists. problem is, there's a lot more than color added there.
a wiki is a different medium than email. because people can alter and even delete contributions by others, there's some tendency to try to compromise in order to minimize change wars. admittedly, it's an imperfect tendency.
> RFC's (WG documents in general) are the editorial filter through which
> we pass/preserve the contributed discussion that is deemed informative.
this is not true of WG documents in general, which are often quite biased and occasionally one-sided.
as for RFCs, there's a lot of overhead associated with them, which is part of why IETF has a difficult time keeping its documents current.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf