Re: History of protocol discussion or process in WG

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:38:29PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> farther, and say that the whole endeavor should be.  But having at least
> a record from individauls about what *they* said or meant is, I suppose,
> not unreasonable.

Indeed.  And this (and the rest of the posts in this thread) in fact
provide such a record, automatically.

Historians overwhelmingly prefer primary sources, and the IETF (at
least in recent years) is obliging: we have minutes of meetings, full
recordings of the audio streams, and long and well-maintained mailing
list archives.  Historians who wish to figure out the history of some
bit of protocol have ample resources.  I see no reason whatever for
WGs to produce a self-congratulatory (or soul-searching) documents
talking about how they managed to do something.  An obsession with
meta-meta-meta-process is a sure sign of organizational morbidity. 

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]