On 9/17/11 10:29 , Keith Moore wrote:
>
> 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.
the frequency with which an opinion is stated by a small but prolific
number of individuals should not confer legitimacy over less frequent
contributors.
>> 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.
I did not say that they were unbiased, I said that they served as filter
on the output.
> 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