tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And while this discussion has been largely about meetings and their
> utility, my perception is that most of the work of the IETF takes place
> on mailing lists and so if we want to work better, smarter or whatever,
> then a small improvement on the work done on mailing lists would do
> more for us than a big improvement for the work done in meetings.
I agree with you: we need to improve our ability to use the lists.
If we could improve mailing list use, then we could make better progress.
There are a bunch of us who still know and remember how to Usenet quote well.
We have the right tools, and they are under our control (and don't change
randomly with upgrades).
I think that a difficulty we have between github issues and mailing lists
is that those that many that prefer github never learnt how to use mail
properly. That's part of the gap, but not all of it.
My "peers" (45+-10yr) have mostly moved to Apple Mail (or Outlook on Mac),
have often (but not universally) forgotten to turn off HTML ("my comments are
on red"), and now quote paragraphs which leads to mangled attributions.
This pushes the newer people, who can not sort it out, to github.
Meanwhile, me and my peers live in email, not browser (not gmail).
I rather like github for DESIGN TEAMS, but I don't like it for reviews and
WGLC review. Yes, I opened a 100+ issues (for BRSKI) based upon reviews, but it
was me that did that, not the reviewers. I used github to keep track of my
work, and I recorded that to the mailing list.
I have not experienced the github integration that brings things more clearly
back to the mailing list. I should do this for CELLAR and see how it works.
> And here I am thinking of what WG Chairs do or do not do. Before
> adoption, the work gets driven by the authors of an I-D; after WG Last
> Call, the work gets driven by the AD; in between, it is up to the WG
> Chairs and it is there that I think there is most scope for changing
> whatever it is we want to change, be it reducing mistakes, speeding up
> the process or whatever.
If you are saying that we have a lack of uniformity in what level of
involvement WG chairs have with progressing documents, then I agree!
-- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ >> >> Melinda >> >> > >> -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
