The RPC has already said that the existing e-mail based flow will remain. -Ekr
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:40 AM Andrew G. Malis <[email protected]> wrote: > In addition to Brian's questions, this entire conversation seems to assume > a level of familiarity/comfort with git that not all authors may have. Will > authors be able to continue to use the current procedures as well if they > prefer? > > Cheers, > Andy > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 11:02 PM Brian E Carpenter < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > Just to be clear, if the authors want to make unsolicited changes >> beyond what the RPC changed, they should be generating their own PRs, not >> making those changes to the RPC's PR. >> > >> >> And if the changes are not purely editorial, they must be reported to the >> WG, as long as we're talking about IETF Consensus documents. So that >> changes the game. >> >> BTW I'm not sure the procedure that Richard outlined is complete. There's >> an important step in the current procedure that he didn't list: >> >> 2a. Script sends RPC's specfic questions to authors in a second email >> >> and step 3 should read: >> >> 3. Authors respond to email including answering those specific questions >> >> So how are those questions handled via Github? And how does the RPC nag >> authors that don't reply? >> >> Brian >> >>
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
