On Aug 6, 2019, at 17:52, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:48:00AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: >> >> Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The usual process is for the IETF Chair tell the ADs to address them >>> and get the numbers down, and for the rest of us to have a discussion >>> with the the Nomcom if neither of those happen. >> >> I think that we need to do something to allow the work to be more visible to >> WG chairs, leaving the ADs to deal with errata where there are no WG, and >> then redirect it to an appropriate WG or XYZAREA-WG. >> Some of this could be done by directorates too. >> >> ADs are too valuable, and yet usually don't have the subject matter, >> and at this point, authors don't have any ability to act. > > Most of the time, if the authors reply back that an errata is (in)valid, I > am willing to act on it. More input from a WG list is better, of course, > but if I'm left to my own devices, I tend to only act on errata related to > technologies that I consider myself to already be an expert at. If the WG that owns the technology is still around, the errata report should be tied to this WG. In CoRE, we have recently started to make github issues out of our outstanding errata reports. Not a guarantee of success, but a start. Now we need to act on this: — collect relevant information in the github issue — once the collection appears reasonably complete, agree on a disposition — check consensus on the mailing list (This is on the chairs’ meager set of todos now.) But there is also the underlying problem that the errata reporting process is so weirdly rigid, and so unintegrated into everything else we do. That is maybe something the next RSE could invest effort on… Grüße, Carsten
