Hi Melinda, On 7/6/15 9:09 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 7/6/15 6:57 AM, Leif Johansson wrote: >> 6 jul 2015 kl. 16:10 skrev Andrew Newton <andy@xxxxxx >> <mailto:andy@xxxxxx>>: >>> I think John's point is that in the IETF we usually do not >>> interpret lack of feedback as passive approval but rather lack of >>> any review. >> We also depend on active participation. > To be honest, I was completely ignoring the DOI discussion until > someone emailed me directly about it. The reasons I was staying > away from it include: > > 1) The IETF is going to do what it's going to do, which tend to be > whatever a few people in the leadership want it to do. It's > unlikely that participation and review is going to change outcomes > on hobbyhorse projects > > 2) Bibliographic discussions in the IETF tend to be particularly > frustrating because there are very few people who actually know > anything about the subject matter, but everybody's got an > opinion. There's a tendency to fall into the "I'm a smart person, > so perhaps I may not know anything about the field but hey, I'm > a smart person" trap. This document contains some incorrect > statements, or statements so broad as to carry very little > information, and there doesn't appear to be much interest among > those participating in the discussion in seeing those corrected. > That tends to lead to the conclusion that there's no point in > participating in discussions about bibliographic matters within > the IETF There goes the whistle. Unsupported assertion while claiming same, Offense. 5 yard penalty. How about instead pointing out the incorrect statements and test your assertion? > > I think problems 1 and 2 are pervasive throughout the IETF's work > and not isolated to this particular document, but the fact that this > is an area in which so few IETF participants have any expertise > tends to bring it out more strongly. I suspect it has something > to do with the incredible volume of just plain bad drafts we're > facing these days, and the pressures associated with dealing with those. > > Melinda > > [BTW, as a (sort-of) side note, if you've read this document you're > aware that it not only contains a discussion of assigning DOIs > to RFCs but also contains a discussion of the use of DOIs within > RFCs, because assigning DOIs to our documents carries with it > the obligation to the issuing body to use DOIs within our own > documents.] > Where in the document does it state any such obligation? This sort of overstatement and misinformation is how we end up with a 100-message sillyThread® on this mailing list. Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature