[rfc-i] RFC editing as protocol design
hallam at gmail.com
Wed Mar 28 08:15:04 PDT 2012
Well these only seem to list the official roles, what about the WG members?
I would like to move from the traditional approach entirely. Moving to
HTML makes it possible for editing to become a collaborative activity
that is more of a Wiki approach than having everything channel through
a central editor.
A Wiki alone is not enough, but the technology that Mallery and
Hurwitz developed for the Open Meeting could. Back in 1994 when it was
deployed the participants just could not get to terms with it. But
over the past twenty years I have seen feature after feature adopted
in the blogosphere.
[And yes, anyone from FaceBook who is reading this should get in touch
with me pronto as this reads directly on the claims Yahoo is asserting
in their case against them.]
Back in the early days of the Web someone at MIT made me watch some
old movies, as in very very old movies, silent films from before WWI.
They were not very interesting, exciting or even comprehensible which
was his point. When we are watching movies today we do so by
interpreting them through the lens of numerous cliches and conventions
that help fill in the gaps.
If Citizen Kane had been made in 1902, audiences would not have been
able to understand it. It took 50 years to develop the conventions
that allowed people to do that.
The same is true of blogs and comment forums. We had one in 1994 but
they didn't really catch on for almost ten years.
I think that it might be time to go back to some of that stuff.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter at adobe.com> wrote:
> We are doing protocol design. We’re looking for “rough consensus and
> running code” to establish the necessary standards for this protocol.
> The “roles” in this protocol include:
> Are there more? The protocol has various communication paths between the
> parties involved and various options. There are many desired characteristics
> of this protocol, including ease of use by human agents, availability or
> constructability of tools to perform transitions.
> We’re starting from a problem statement that the current protocol standard
> for the RFC-publication => RFC-reader is not rich enough to carry
> information that the ID-editor wants to communicate, and have the
> ID-reviewers review.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest