[rfc-i] Too soon [was: Removing postal information from RFCs [was: Changes to the v3 <postal> element]]
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Jun 11 14:03:02 PDT 2021
On 11-Jun-21 21:26, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Am 11.06.2021 um 07:10 schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
>> Upping the level one more notch:
>> On 11-Jun-21 14:59, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> On 11 Jun 2021, at 12:59 pm, John R Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>>>>>> About what? If there is evidence that the postal addresses are useful, I'd be happy to hear about it. All we've seen is along the lines of well, someone might use it for X, but in practice they don't.
>>>>> You claimed that lack of evidence was justification for this change. I was asking if that was informed lack of evidence, or just lack of asking.
>>>> I'm asking. If anyone thinks that the physical postal address is important
>>> I do.
>>>> and worth the editors spending time on, let us know.
>>> Given that we're already spending time on it, I think we've crossed that bridge.
>> I detect an obvious lack of consensus here, so a community process is needed, and we don't have one yet. So IMHO this can has to be kicked down the road until the RSE discussions have been resolved.
> I'll make a proposal later that should be able to reach consensus.
>> (FWIW I have never received paper mail in my life about any RFC that I've co-authored, but of course it is essential to give an attribution and enough of an address to distinguish one person from another. We've had at least one case of two people with the same name and the same employer, and at least one of them is an RFC author.)
> In which case the email address should help, no?
Yes, but not over a 20 or 30 year timespan with people moving from job to job.
There's no perfect solution, but first we need to know the *purposes* of the author's address section. All I wanted to say is that they don't include the ability to send physical mail.
More information about the rfc-interest