Hiya, On 07/08/2019 12:31, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > Some ADs simply don't think errata is useful. I handled some, but worked > with ADs who didn't care about them. I guess I was one of those:-) I wouldn't say I considered errata as not being useful, but I do consider most errata are not useful and many are hugely time-consuming (it can take an hour to acquire enough context to decide if moving that comma is ok or not;-), and as a result my approach was to leave errata alone unless one was discussed on one of my WG's lists, or it was immediately apparent that the change was good, or if someone other than the of the erratum mailed me or a list to which I as subscribed (be that a WG participant or RFC author or whomever) saying the erratum was a good change. Basically, I took silence as indicative of unimportance as I didn't have time to process 'em all. And the world didn't end, but yes the queue built up some more. So another way to improve this might be to put new errata into a "probably nobody cares right now" queue until it is apparent that someone other than the poster of the erratum cares that the change is good and ought be visible. At that point an erratum could be moved into the "for processing" queue. A WG later developing a bis draft could consider those "nobody cared" errata just as much as ever, but in the meantime they'd not bother the rest of the world (which, again, would not end:-). Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
