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

Andrew Sullivan ajs at shinkuro.com
Wed Nov 17 04:10:14 PST 2010

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:21:34PM +0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> the requested scope.  He gets essentially no commentary on the substance 
> of what he has written except about its deficiencies in form or style.

Gee, Dave, it seems to me that a message that says, "All of this stuff
should be taken out; here's a whole bunch of stuff that isn't includes
but that should be included; and we need to make a stark choice
between two options, so please lay that out," is in fact a message
about _content_, not form or style.  I've seen more than one of those.
If you have problems with what Leslie said, fine, but I don't think
it's cricket to make insinuations about everyone who's asking

> 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.

As I already said, I can't _tell_ whether the recommendations are
acceptable, because the premises that would actually allow me to
understand their reasoning -- the experiences of the TRSE -- are not
outlined (or anyway, not in a way that I managed to discern).

> 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 

My issue was not "didn't show his work".  I can't tell whether Glenn's
is a reasonable recommendation.  There's a reason the first round of
the RSE hiring failed, and I think it's that the job is not a
reasonable one.  The job as now proposed might be a reasonable one,
but it might well be solving the wrong problem.  We would be able to
tell if we had the evidence that said, "I experienced _x_ and
therefore I recommend _y_."  We might even be able to draw some
conclusions if we had the evidence that said, "In the course of a
year, I didn't have time to examine foo, so consistent with some other
principles I recommend bar."  Asking for that is not being some picky
process maven.  It's asking for reasons why one course of action won't
land us right back where we were.


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list