Whoops, I lost a 'not' Tom Petch > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> > Cc: "Abdussalam Baryun" <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx>; "ietf" > <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; "Lixia Zhang" <lixia@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 6:38 PM > > > > On 2/3/2013 10:28 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > I'm not sure I've ever been involved with a WG where you could have > > > gotten consensus on any of the above enough to publish it. Nor can > I > > > think of many WGs that have the excess energy to do this work. Even > > > getting consensus on a summary of where you ended up is quite > > > tricky. > > > > > > Getting consensus on the details of a history is much more difficult > > than on a technical spec... > > > > So don't try. There is an I-D in IDR which recorded a substantial part of the history but it was the AD, and NOT the WG, that was not happy with it so it is currently in - well, I don't know what state (now if we had a summary of the status of I-Ds adopted by a WG published each month, as was recently suggested on this list, well, then, I would have the status off pat:-) Tom Petch > > > What I think /is/ possible, however, is to establish a "history of" > > wiki, to which participants can contribute their views. > > > > Moderate it, to limit the noise. Solicit and vet contributions from > > principals, to seed the data with credible material. > > > > Then let historians worry about synthesizing this source data into > > something more coherent (and biased, and ...) > > > > But at least the raw narrative of motivated principals will have been > > captured. > > > > In terms of administrative overhead, there isn't much, other than > > creating a separate page for each activity. > > > > > > d/ > > > > >