[rfc-i] My comments on http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt

Dave CROCKER dhc2 at dcrocker.net
Tue Nov 16 22:21:34 PST 2010



On 11/17/2010 7:20 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> Let me try this: I don't think I'm urging requirements for Glenn's report from
> his activities. I'm sure it's a fine report of his recommendations.
>
> I'm urging requirements for the production and shape of the next turn of the
> crank on the RFC Editor model, as captured in an RFC.


Leslie,

Practically speaking, you (and pretty much everyone else) have actually cast 
this exercise as an iterative guessing game for Glenn, with only guidance about 
form and precious little about substance.

We task the guy with writing something and he talks to lots of people.  8 months 
later, he produces the requested set of recommendations, within the requested 
scope.  He gets essentially no commentary on the substance of what he has 
written except about its deficiencies in form or style.

The failure to provide any comment on the substance of the report (or its 
overview) and the failure to provide any statements of concrete preference among 
possible choices means that he AGAIN has no guidance of what will be acceptable 
to you or anyone else.

He spent 8 months guessing what the community wanted.  Different people all say 
it didn't fly.  Now he gets to guess again.  Again with no real guidance, except 
as to (a different) form.

Collaborative review provides feedback on substance as well as form.  It places 
the critic on the record for what their own preferences are, and possibly even 
why, and better still if they explain why the current recommendations are not 
acceptable.

Instead the dominant feedback Glenn has gotten is that folks won't provide 
substantive feedback because he didn't show his work or he used too many words, 
or he included discussion they think should be elsewhere, or... or... or...

Your original posting had 4 points.  All were about form or process.  The 
closest you came to substance was the suggestion to include only what is 
immediately essential and defer the rest.  That's actually excellent advice, 
except you do not tell him what you or I or Ole or Brian or... think is 
essential.  Call me a skeptic but I suspect we each have different views on this 
and so now Glenn has another point to navigate and guess, without specific guidance.

As Brian notes, this effort does not have unbounded time available to it.

You say "I'm sure it's a fine report of his recommendations."

You mean you're not sure whether it is or it isn't?

d/

ps.  The exchange you are now having with Andrew is, however, might turn into a 
nice example of getting meaningful discussion on significant substance, but 
again, your response to him was about process.

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list