Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> days. Be that as it may, I was doing the librarianship thing during a
> time when open vs. closed stacks was a highly contested question, and
> one argument that was reliably and inevitably advanced in favor of open
> stacks was that of the value of "tripping over a book in the stacks."
> That is to say, there were a lot of people who felt there was value in
> introducing some (pseudo-) randomness into the process, such that a
> person looking for information on a particular topic accidentally came
> across something unrelated and it triggered something innovative. In
> the IETF context I do worry a bit that overspecialization and "silos"
> are leading to situations in which we're missing connections and
> related but perhaps orthogonal work. I see that happening quite a bit
> on middlebox-related topics and I'm suspicious that peeling nearly all
> draft discussion off a general mailing list might lead to an increase
> in missed connections.
I rather agree. I would prefer that a random draft, if it doesn't have *WG*
in it, ought to have *AREANAME*, and the appropriate area list is the right
place.
We already have draft-name@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx alias as well, but that's not an
open, archived list.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
pgpQhDbniD5wY.pgp
Description: PGP signature