--On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 21:45 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Scott, What the heck do you think the current posting and
> request for comments is meant to be for?
>
> If the community has enough basic concerns about the
> /substance/ of the document and enough energy to pursue them,
> then the community knows how to decide on a resolution path.
Dave,
I won't attempt to speak for the community, but when a proposal
is made to replace a fundamental document, there is grounds for
concern about accidental (or even "submarine") changes. To that
end, and _especially_ if the sort of review we normally
associate with WGs is not anticipated, the kind of detailed
summary of the changes that are intended that I think Scott and
Brian are asking for seems appropriate and even necessary. Such
a list would permit readers/reviewers to consider whether the
intentional changed are what is wanted and to check for
unintended ones. Those checks often require different skill
sets and might be performed by different members of the
community. In addition, if unintended changes were discovered,
that would provide justification for more intense scrutiny in
either WG or some other form.
If procedures were being created for the first time, the
situation would be different, as it was when you are Erik did
the initial drafts that lead to 2418. But it seems to me that
"what, if anything, does this mean we need to do differently" is
a relevant, and key, question for any revision, especially one
separated from the original by multiple updates and many years.
john