Re: Making the Tao a web page
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Dave Crocker wrote: On 6/4/2012 12:36 AM, SM wrote: At 14:33 01-06-2012, Russ Housley wrote: So, I am left with a few questions: - What is the similar forcing function if we use a wiki? - Will the number of people that can make updates eliminate the need for such a forcing function? - Who designates the editor-in-chief of the wiki? ... ... Instead of discussing the above questions it is easier to create an Wiki page and leave it to anyone with a tools login who cares to update it. In effect, the wiki construct becomes a form of incrementally-updatable internet draft. For documents involving procedures rather than products, this well might be a better working base than I-Ds... But with the I-D model superimposed. That is, perhaps what makes this workable is imposing an editor role onto the wiki and assign responsibility for monitoring changes to the editors? (It might even be worth integrating it into the rest of the I-D administration environment?) Note that this still leaves a place for published snapshots as RFCs. I like the idea of moving towards a more lively version of the Tao and I agree with all those who've voiced concerns about using to open of a process for group editing. I have an alternate suggestion which tries to walk the "middle way". What is we create the Tao as a web page with one lead editor (an a possible second author as needed) who is responsible for regular review and updates and then spin up an etherpad version of the text which can be edited by anyone with a tools login? The editor could then track and incorporate suggested changes into the canonical web page and notify the list when major updates occur. This would use some familiar elements of our current document production process and tools we already have in place and would give the editor a way to contact those with suggested changes if further dialogue was needed. One question for the Tools team - can etherpad handle a long lived document? - Lucy d/
Re: Making the Tao a web page
Hi Dave, At 23:02 03-06-2012, Dave Crocker wrote: In effect, the wiki construct becomes a form of incrementally-updatable internet draft. For documents involving procedures rather than products, this well might be a better working base than I-Ds... It's more of an experiment. If it is a success someone gets all the glory by turning it into an I-D. If the experiment fails the people who have put in the effort will have wasted their time. I would look at this in terms of the tool used for a collaborative effort. It is left to the community to decide whether further changes are needed for the output to reflect consensus. That is, perhaps what makes this workable is imposing an editor role onto the wiki and assign responsibility for monitoring changes to the editors? (It might even be worth integrating it into the rest of the I-D administration environment?) There is a Trac plugin for email notifications. I am not thinking of the integration part as it requires more than a lightweight effort. Eliot pointed out that there is a socialization problem. Who knows, may be the collaborative effort might help. Regards, -sm
Re: Making the Tao a web page
Hi I agree with you, and would add we need the web and RFC so that we get things right. However, to make quick progress in RFC is not to wait for discussions to end, but to open a restricted period/window for discussion which MUST end some date and make the changes/updates, then take the final consensus, Best regards AB + On Jun 3, 2012, at 6:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > ... I further guess that > "on an ongoing basis" will be better for the document than > getting a new snapshot out as an RFC and seeing how long it > takes to get stale and how long after that it takes the > community to notice. ... I second the above statement (my apology to John for quoting this single sentence out of his whole msg) Lixia
Re: Making the Tao a web page
Dear Paul Hoffman >Simpler than the above: make it a web page > (as Brian points out, we already have a good URL), > have one editor, have one leadership person who > approves non-trivial changes (I think "IETF Chair" fits here well), > have a "last modified" date on it, and update it as needed. If there > is consensus in the community to do this, I'm happy to take on > the HTMLizing and skip the RFCizing for this round. I thank you for this opportunity. I think we need both the webpage and the RFCs to make it more understood to all volunteer members around the world. As a new comer to IETF my volunteer process experience was started not good so far (see below attached), as I feel lost some times by group-practice-policy, I think list leaders/holders should help in such situations. I am reviewing the draft and will comment on the changes and future updates. Please note that practice may not always be perfect like documents/webs procedures. In conclusion, All policy procedures of IETF SHOULD be perfect, hope we do our best together for this. I will write my comments on some-points of overall procedures and for your draft, I also will try to include New-Comers consideration by chairs and memebrs, so procedure consider their experience and that do not be blocked by informal directions a group takes over. Abdussalam Baryun University of glamorgan, UK +++ To: manet Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt From: Abdussalam Baryun Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 09:41:33 +0200 Dear All, I beleive that we are all informally equal in terms of rights and responsibilities, but in organisations we have formal responsibilities and rights to make work-processes progress to the direction of the aim and objectives of the organisation, not in the direction of some individuals decisions. I beleive the best practice for IETF groups is in RFC2418 and RFC3934. On 5/18/12, Stan Ratliff wrote: > It has never been the process (at least in the MANET working group) to > formally track each and every comment coming in on a draft and actively > notify/dispose of said items. This is rooted in the notion that the IETF is > a volunteer organization; as such, we've all got "day jobs", and do the best > we can. Another reason for this (slightly informal) process model is to keep > the group from spinning ad-nauseum, generating vast amounts of email on > trivial topics. This discussion is a reasonably good example of that very > thing. The process for MANET WG SHOULD follow the RFC2418. IMHO the IETF is a formal organisation, and yes it is structured of volunteering members, but it is not informal organisation. Please note that number of emails SHOULD not be restricted, but the content of messages MAY be restricted. Yes our relationships are RECOMMENDED to be friendly and informally social to inhance the group activities. All informal models give chances of more power to organisation managers. I don't agree with the informal-process model, but agree with RFC2418-process model. > > You made some comments/suggestions on OLSRv2. They were considered by the > authors, and by the working group members. The authors didn't agree with you > in all cases, and the working group, via its silence, indicated *they* > didn't agree with you either. And now, apparently, you want to re-litigate > all or part of that. I for one am not interested. > Silence is not a reaction (e.g. not an indication), because as you mentioned we are volunteers and we have jobs, therefore, silence most possibility means I am bussy, not meaning I agree nor disagree. > My opinion is that OSLRv2-15 has cleared WGLC, and will be forwarded to the > AD's/IESG for review and publication. If the working group members *DO NOT* > agree with me, then let the fire-storm of emails commence. > I reply to this call that I *DO NOT* agree to give forward to OLSRv2-14 or OLSRv2-15 until I comment on it, or only after concensus collected for the decision (i.e. it is easy to collect electronically, as in RFC2418 does not have to be face-to-face collecting). Regarding the OLSRv2-15 draft it is better than OLSRv2-14 because it reduced my confusions, but I will need some time to review OLSRv2-15 and comment on it as well. Regarding fire-storm emails, it seems it will not be happening in MANET WG, maybe active memebrs are about 60, not sure. In conclusion, from the group chair last message, I understand that there was no concensus collected for OLSRv2 to go forward, so the MANET-WG still didn't make last decision yet. I am sorry if I made any disturbing to any. In the end of all processes I am interested in understanding and participating in IETF. If the group or group chairs decides that I stop emailing in MANET, I will stop without any complains to higher levels, and go to another IETF group. Thanking you, Best Regards, Abdussalam +
Re: Making the Tao a web page
On 6/4/2012 12:36 AM, SM wrote: At 14:33 01-06-2012, Russ Housley wrote: So, I am left with a few questions: - What is the similar forcing function if we use a wiki? - Will the number of people that can make updates eliminate the need for such a forcing function? - Who designates the editor-in-chief of the wiki? ... ... Instead of discussing the above questions it is easier to create an Wiki page and leave it to anyone with a tools login who cares to update it. In effect, the wiki construct becomes a form of incrementally-updatable internet draft. For documents involving procedures rather than products, this well might be a better working base than I-Ds... But with the I-D model superimposed. That is, perhaps what makes this workable is imposing an editor role onto the wiki and assign responsibility for monitoring changes to the editors? (It might even be worth integrating it into the rest of the I-D administration environment?) Note that this still leaves a place for published snapshots as RFCs. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Making the Tao a web page
Hi John, At 18:34 03-06-2012, John C Klensin wrote: I don't think that is a fair comparison. First of all, the Last Call spawned the whole thread about colloquial language. I don't have any way to know how many of those who participated in that thread read all the way through the document and even less way to guess how many people were enough turned off by it to lose interest in the Last Call, maybe after having read the document. Second and more important, my suggestion that we go Fair enough. My guess was that the Last Call was not really a Last Call. :-) in the direction of a web page or wiki spawned a separate thread that is more about the philosophy of how to handle the document rather than about the detailed content of the document itself. Again, I have no idea how many people other than myself looked through the document, decided that "publish as RFC?" was the wrong question, and as the result of that decision, concluded that my time was better spent on medium and editorial process than on reporting specific document comments. So you don't know to what extent I, or anyone else in the "making it a web page" threads read the document through either. Yes. At 18:14 03-06-2012, John C Klensin wrote: Well, as long as the document is informational and an overview, I think that can be accomplished as easily with a web page, an editor who can be trusted to exercise a certain amount of good sense (and whose intentions are trusted) and a process for forcing a review if needed. The thing that bothers me about trying to do this by RFC is that the entire community then wastes a huge amount of time debating the choice and style of words and relatively minor details, after which everyone runs out of energy to make further changes for years (other than posting I-Ds on which there are no real controls, even an appeal process (not that I'd expect Paul to ignore input)). If we go the web page and editor route, expect revisions only when real problems are identified and otherwise do a review every year or so, I think we can get a pretty good balance between the slowness of the RFC-and-community-consensus process and the difficulties of the Wiki one. In 1994 it was mentioned that due to the nature of the document it can become outdated quite quickly. The web page approach was recommended. The EDU Team ( http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/EduCharter ) could be an alternative to take on the task. Regards, -sm
Re: Making the Tao a web page
On Jun 3, 2012, at 6:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > ... I further guess that > "on an ongoing basis" will be better for the document than > getting a new snapshot out as an RFC and seeing how long it > takes to get stale and how long after that it takes the > community to notice. ... I second the above statement (my apology to John for quoting this single sentence out of his whole msg) Lixia
Re: Making the Tao a web page
--On Sunday, June 03, 2012 15:36 -0700 SM wrote: > At 14:33 01-06-2012, Russ Housley wrote: >> it in a wiki, there will be more people that can make update, >> but the publication process ensure that an end-to-end read >> takes place when an update published as an RFC. > > Seven individuals (approximate) submitted comments during the > Last Call. That's not much in terms of end-to-end read of the > draft. Subramanian, I don't think that is a fair comparison. First of all, the Last Call spawned the whole thread about colloquial language. I don't have any way to know how many of those who participated in that thread read all the way through the document and even less way to guess how many people were enough turned off by it to lose interest in the Last Call, maybe after having read the document. Second and more important, my suggestion that we go in the direction of a web page or wiki spawned a separate thread that is more about the philosophy of how to handle the document rather than about the detailed content of the document itself. Again, I have no idea how many people other than myself looked through the document, decided that "publish as RFC?" was the wrong question, and as the result of that decision, concluded that my time was better spent on medium and editorial process than on reporting specific document comments. So you don't know to what extent I, or anyone else in the "making it a web page" threads read the document through either. My guess is that more people have volunteered to help with the web page approach on an ongoing basis than have read the document carefully in the last week or so. I further guess that "on an ongoing basis" will be better for the document than getting a new snapshot out as an RFC and seeing how long it takes to get stale and how long after that it takes the community to notice. But those are just guesses and my opinion. YMMD. >... > HTTPbis has a good Wiki due to the efforts of two persons. > The rest of the IETF, excluding the IESG, do not believe that > it is worth the effort updating a Wiki. Instead of discussing > the above questions it is easier to create an Wiki page and > leave it to anyone with a tools login who cares to update it. See my responses to Eric and Melinda. john
Re: Making the Tao a web page
--On Sunday, June 03, 2012 14:58 -0800 Melinda Shore wrote: > On 6/3/12 2:46 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> Also, perhaps because I have a more vivid (or paranoid) >> imagination than you do, I can think of a lot more than four >> individuals who would be inclined to wreck the party. > > This, I think, is the show-stopper. Back when the internet > started > to become popular a well-known open access advocate put his > system, > which had a passwordless root account, online, and it was > basically > vandalized immediately, then vandalized again, and again, and > again, > until he finally surrendered. I really prefer to keep things > as > open as possible and I would love it if the Tao were a wiki > article, > but transitioning to that model would essentially mean making a > commitment for the life of the page to keeping a very close > eye on > it with a quick response to vandalism. Indeed. > I also think that enough of our process is actually disputed > to make > a living document hard to handle. At least with an RFC we can > say > "this is what we thought it was on a given date, with > considerable review prior to publication." Well, as long as the document is informational and an overview, I think that can be accomplished as easily with a web page, an editor who can be trusted to exercise a certain amount of good sense (and whose intentions are trusted) and a process for forcing a review if needed. The thing that bothers me about trying to do this by RFC is that the entire community then wastes a huge amount of time debating the choice and style of words and relatively minor details, after which everyone runs out of energy to make further changes for years (other than posting I-Ds on which there are no real controls, even an appeal process (not that I'd expect Paul to ignore input)). If we go the web page and editor route, expect revisions only when real problems are identified and otherwise do a review every year or so, I think we can get a pretty good balance between the slowness of the RFC-and-community-consensus process and the difficulties of the Wiki one. best, john
Re: Making the Tao a web page
At 14:33 01-06-2012, Russ Housley wrote: it in a wiki, there will be more people that can make update, but the publication process ensure that an end-to-end read takes place when an update published as an RFC. Seven individuals (approximate) submitted comments during the Last Call. That's not much in terms of end-to-end read of the draft. So, I am left with a few questions: - What is the similar forcing function if we use a wiki? - Will the number of people that can make updates eliminate the need for such a forcing function? - Who designates the editor-in-chief of the wiki? HTTPbis has a good Wiki due to the efforts of two persons. The rest of the IETF, excluding the IESG, do not believe that it is worth the effort updating a Wiki. Instead of discussing the above questions it is easier to create an Wiki page and leave it to anyone with a tools login who cares to update it. Regards, -sm
Re: Making the Tao a web page
On 6/3/12 2:46 PM, John C Klensin wrote: Also, perhaps because I have a more vivid (or paranoid) imagination than you do, I can think of a lot more than four individuals who would be inclined to wreck the party. This, I think, is the show-stopper. Back when the internet started to become popular a well-known open access advocate put his system, which had a passwordless root account, online, and it was basically vandalized immediately, then vandalized again, and again, and again, until he finally surrendered. I really prefer to keep things as open as possible and I would love it if the Tao were a wiki article, but transitioning to that model would essentially mean making a commitment for the life of the page to keeping a very close eye on it with a quick response to vandalism. I also think that enough of our process is actually disputed to make a living document hard to handle. At least with an RFC we can say "this is what we thought it was on a given date, with considerable review prior to publication." Melinda
Re: Making the Tao a web page
--On Sunday, June 03, 2012 17:40 -0400 Eric Burger wrote: > What we have now *is* sclerotic. See Russ' email above yours. > > Can we PLEASE eat our own dog food? Wikipedia managed not to > melt down when they decided NOT TO BUILD WALLS so there were > no gates for the barbarians to crush. > > Let's just turn on a wiki. Wiki's have a lot of technical > measures to deal with problem edits as well as social measures > to ensure quality. Unlike a protocol that needs one editor, I > do not think we will run into interoperability problems by > having an open Wiki. Yes, you and I and others can think of > exactly four individuals who will try to crash the party. > There are technical measures to keep them out without > burdening one or even four people with keeping up the wiki. Eric, FWIW, I think Paul is completely correct. First of all, what is sclerotic is RFC 4677. Paul has been updating the I-D which is much less of a problem. Most of those "in the know" point people to the I-D. I think that having 4677 be the official copy that some people consult as authoritative is a problem, but it is another problem. Those wiki technical measures depend on someone actively watching for changes and having the time to step in. I don't think we can count on that, at least without a greater level of effort that is required for an editor to receive comments and integrate them. I might change my mind if you, personally, agreed to monitor the wiki in real time and alert the IETF list to any possibly-questionable postings _and_ there was consensus that those on the list wanted that additional traffic. FWIW, I had a need on Friday to look up some details and information that are fairly directly related to the IETF and its relationships to some other bodies and decided to check the Wikipedia pages that showed up in the search. I'd give what I found a score on accuracy and completeness of "joke" -- a few identifiable falsehoods and a lot of convenient omissions (I don't know or care whether those are the result of carelessness, ignorance, or malice). The most relevant of those pages wasn't even flagged with "may be incomplete", "insufficient references", or "may be biased", etc. If you want to demonstrate how well the Wiki system works, drop me a note volunteering to fix the primary page involved and I'll tell you what it is and, if you can't figure it out on your own in under two minutes, where to get authoritative information. In principle, I could do it myself, but I just don't have time... and that, and the fact that no one with the facts and time has spotted those pages, is a large part of the problem with doing something like the Tao by Wiki. Also, perhaps because I have a more vivid (or paranoid) imagination than you do, I can think of a lot more than four individuals who would be inclined to wreck the party. Some of the individuals I can think of also have multiple personalities or collections of sympathetic fellow-travelers (not just multiple email addresses). And, while I would hope they wouldn't engage in such thing, if only because of the risk of getting caught, I can think of a large and well-endowed organization or three who might have incentives to put highly distorted information onto an IETF Wiki that described how the IETF worked, copy that material before it were taken down, and then quote it in other sources. Finally, as far as "our dogfood" is concerned, I just made a careful search through the RFC index and a few other sources and couldn't find an IETF Standards Track document describing the Wiki technology and approach. I couldn't even find an Informational document. So, unless I've missed something, this particular food belongs to some other dog. _Our_ dog food would be to follow the precedent set with RFC 5000. And I think that is exactly what Paul and several others, including myself, have been suggesting. best, john
Re: Making the Tao a web page
What we have now *is* sclerotic. See Russ' email above yours. Can we PLEASE eat our own dog food? Wikipedia managed not to melt down when they decided NOT TO BUILD WALLS so there were no gates for the barbarians to crush. Let's just turn on a wiki. Wiki's have a lot of technical measures to deal with problem edits as well as social measures to ensure quality. Unlike a protocol that needs one editor, I do not think we will run into interoperability problems by having an open Wiki. Yes, you and I and others can think of exactly four individuals who will try to crash the party. There are technical measures to keep them out without burdening one or even four people with keeping up the wiki. On Jun 1, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > I have a concern here. When I did the AD review for this document, I was > quite surprised how stale it had become. For example, the document told > people to send I-Ds to the Secretariat for posting instead of pointing to the > online I-D submission tool. If we put it in a wiki, there will be more > people that can make update, but the publication process ensure that an > end-to-end read takes place when an update published as an RFC. > > So, I am left with a few questions: > - What is the similar forcing function if we use a wiki? > - Will the number of people that can make updates eliminate the need for such > a forcing function? > - Who designates the editor-in-chief of the wiki? > > Russ On May 31, 2012, at 7:50 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On May 31, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >> On 01/06/2012 00:04, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> Works for me, other than it should not be a "wiki". It should have one >>> editor who takes proposed changes from the community the same way we do >>> it now. Not all suggestions from this community, even from individuals >>> in the leadership, are ones that should appear in such a document. >> >> In practice, if this is to be a living document then it should be open for >> inspection and poking rather than preserved in formaldehyde and put in a >> display case, only to be opened occasionally when the curator decides the >> glass needs some dusting. That way leads to sclerosis. > > Thank you for that most colorful analogy. :-) What I proposed is exactly what > we are doing now, except that the changes would appear on the web page > instead of an Internet-Draft and, five years later, an RFC. Are you saying > that the current system (which you have not commented on until now) is > sclerotic (a word that I have wanted to use since I learned it in high > school)? > >> Please put it on a wiki and put all changes through a lightweight review >> system. If someone makes a change which doesn't work, then it can be >> reverted quickly and easily. This approach is much more in line with the >> ietf approach of informality / asking for forgiveness rather than >> permission / rough consensus + running code / etc. > > > In the IETF approach, only the authors of an Internet-Draft can change the > contents of that draft. I hope you are not proposing a change to that as well. > > --Paul Hoffman >
Re: Making the Tao a web page
I have a concern here. When I did the AD review for this document, I was quite surprised how stale it had become. For example, the document told people to send I-Ds to the Secretariat for posting instead of pointing to the online I-D submission tool. If we put it in a wiki, there will be more people that can make update, but the publication process ensure that an end-to-end read takes place when an update published as an RFC. So, I am left with a few questions: - What is the similar forcing function if we use a wiki? - Will the number of people that can make updates eliminate the need for such a forcing function? - Who designates the editor-in-chief of the wiki? Russ
Re: Making the Tao a web page
On 01/06/2012 00:50, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Thank you for that most colorful analogy. :-) What I proposed is exactly > what we are doing now, except that the changes would appear on the web > page instead of an Internet-Draft and, five years later, an RFC. Are you > saying that the current system (which you have not commented on until > now) is sclerotic (a word that I have wanted to use since I learned it > in high school)? It depends on what you're trying to do. For prescriptive documents which aren't expected to change much, the I-D system works well. But as it's been suggested that this document falls into a category which is expected to change from time to time, wikis offer a lot more flexibility. Wikipedia editing and document management policy suggests that you can end up with quality material. It's a bit of a departure from the I-D system, but its lack of formality is quite appealing for documents which are not formally prescriptive. Nick
RE: Making the Tao a web page
Wish come true... -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 8:46 AM To: Paul Hoffman Cc: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: Making the Tao a web page Hi Paul, At 16:04 31-05-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote: >needed. If there is consensus in the community to do this, I'm happy >to take on the HTMLizing and skip the RFCizing for this round. I'll volunteer to help. Regards, -sm P.S. To see what the Web 3.0 folks are up to, see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.
Re: Making the Tao a web page
Hi Paul, At 16:04 31-05-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote: needed. If there is consensus in the community to do this, I'm happy to take on the HTMLizing and skip the RFCizing for this round. I'll volunteer to help. Regards, -sm P.S. To see what the Web 3.0 folks are up to, see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki
Re: Making the Tao a web page
--On Thursday, May 31, 2012 16:04 -0700 Paul Hoffman wrote: > On May 31, 2012, at 8:19 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > >> (1) Establish the Tao as a modified Wiki, complete with live >> HTML links to relevant documents and other relevant >> discussions.. Provide some mechanism for comments to the >> editor or even discussion that works better than the RFC >> Errata process. Turn maintenance of that page over to a >> volunteer or two (ideally someone young enough to learn a lot >> from the process) or the Secretariat. Before someone says >> "cost", please calculate the costs to the community of an >> extended Last Call in which people debate details of wording. >> >> (2) Appoint Paul as chair of an editorial committee with zero >> or more additional members to be appointed at his discretion >> subject to advice and consent of the IESG. That committee >> gets to consider whether to make changes. If they get it >> wrong, they are subject to the community's normal forms of >> abuse and, in principle, appeals. That could add a bit of >> work for the IESG but I suggest only a bit and less than >> running a Last Call. >> >> (3) Replace/ obsolete RFC 4677 by a document modeled on RFC >> 5000. I.e., it should explain why we are maintaining the Tao >> as one or more web pages and should provide a durable pointer >> to how the web page can be found. > Works for me, other than it should not be a "wiki". It should > have one editor who takes proposed changes from the community > the same way we do it now. Not all suggestions from this > community, even from individuals in the leadership, are ones > that should appear in such a document. Paul, that is precisely what I meant by "modified Wiki" and the editorial committee comment. Note that I was not only proposing appointing you (in recognition both of doing a good job and of the status quo) but giving you discretion over whether you wanted a committee. If that wasn't clear, I apologize. If it is clear now (whether it was before or not), kumbayah. > Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points > out, we already have a good URL), have one editor, have one > leadership person who approves non-trivial changes (I think > "IETF Chair" fits here well), have a "last modified" date on > it, and update it as needed. If there is consensus in the > community to do this, I'm happy to take on the HTMLizing and > skip the RFCizing for this round. Wfm. And also, I think, completely consistent with what I was trying to suggest. Make that "IETF Chair or designee" and you are back to my editorial committee, modulo my desire to make you the final authority unless extraordinary measures are taken rather than adding to the required task list of the IETF Chair or even the IESG more generally. best, john
Re: Making the Tao a web page
Awesome idea, I will be more than happy to be part of it. On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 5/31/12 5:59 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > > > On May 31, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > >> Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points out, we > already have a good URL), have one editor, have one leadership person who > approves non-trivial changes (I think "IETF Chair" fits here well), have a > "last modified" date on it, and update it as needed. If there is consensus > in the community to do this, I'm happy to take on the HTMLizing and skip > the RFCizing for this round. > > > > wfm > > Me, too. And I'd volunteer to help maintain it. :) > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > -- Fadi.Mohsen
Re: Making the Tao a web page
On 5/31/12 5:59 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > On May 31, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points out, we already >> have a good URL), have one editor, have one leadership person who approves >> non-trivial changes (I think "IETF Chair" fits here well), have a "last >> modified" date on it, and update it as needed. If there is consensus in the >> community to do this, I'm happy to take on the HTMLizing and skip the >> RFCizing for this round. > > wfm Me, too. And I'd volunteer to help maintain it. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Re: Making the Tao a web page
On May 31, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points out, we already > have a good URL), have one editor, have one leadership person who approves > non-trivial changes (I think "IETF Chair" fits here well), have a "last > modified" date on it, and update it as needed. If there is consensus in the > community to do this, I'm happy to take on the HTMLizing and skip the > RFCizing for this round. wfm
Re: Making the Tao a web page
On May 31, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 01/06/2012 00:04, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Works for me, other than it should not be a "wiki". It should have one >> editor who takes proposed changes from the community the same way we do >> it now. Not all suggestions from this community, even from individuals >> in the leadership, are ones that should appear in such a document. > > In practice, if this is to be a living document then it should be open for > inspection and poking rather than preserved in formaldehyde and put in a > display case, only to be opened occasionally when the curator decides the > glass needs some dusting. That way leads to sclerosis. Thank you for that most colorful analogy. :-) What I proposed is exactly what we are doing now, except that the changes would appear on the web page instead of an Internet-Draft and, five years later, an RFC. Are you saying that the current system (which you have not commented on until now) is sclerotic (a word that I have wanted to use since I learned it in high school)? > Please put it on a wiki and put all changes through a lightweight review > system. If someone makes a change which doesn't work, then it can be > reverted quickly and easily. This approach is much more in line with the > ietf approach of informality / asking for forgiveness rather than > permission / rough consensus + running code / etc. In the IETF approach, only the authors of an Internet-Draft can change the contents of that draft. I hope you are not proposing a change to that as well. --Paul Hoffman
Re: Making the Tao a web page
On 01/06/2012 00:04, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Works for me, other than it should not be a "wiki". It should have one > editor who takes proposed changes from the community the same way we do > it now. Not all suggestions from this community, even from individuals > in the leadership, are ones that should appear in such a document. In practice, if this is to be a living document then it should be open for inspection and poking rather than preserved in formaldehyde and put in a display case, only to be opened occasionally when the curator decides the glass needs some dusting. That way leads to sclerosis. Please put it on a wiki and put all changes through a lightweight review system. If someone makes a change which doesn't work, then it can be reverted quickly and easily. This approach is much more in line with the ietf approach of informality / asking for forgiveness rather than permission / rough consensus + running code / etc. Nick
Making the Tao a web page
On May 31, 2012, at 8:19 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > (1) Establish the Tao as a modified Wiki, complete with live > HTML links to relevant documents and other relevant > discussions.. Provide some mechanism for comments to the editor > or even discussion that works better than the RFC Errata > process. Turn maintenance of that page over to a volunteer or > two (ideally someone young enough to learn a lot from the > process) or the Secretariat. Before someone says "cost", > please calculate the costs to the community of an extended Last > Call in which people debate details of wording. > > (2) Appoint Paul as chair of an editorial committee with zero or > more additional members to be appointed at his discretion > subject to advice and consent of the IESG. That committee gets > to consider whether to make changes. If they get it wrong, they > are subject to the community's normal forms of abuse and, in > principle, appeals. That could add a bit of work for the IESG > but I suggest only a bit and less than running a Last Call. > > (3) Replace/ obsolete RFC 4677 by a document modeled on RFC > 5000. I.e., it should explain why we are maintaining the Tao as > one or more web pages and should provide a durable pointer to > how the web page can be found. Works for me, other than it should not be a "wiki". It should have one editor who takes proposed changes from the community the same way we do it now. Not all suggestions from this community, even from individuals in the leadership, are ones that should appear in such a document. Simpler than the above: make it a web page (as Brian points out, we already have a good URL), have one editor, have one leadership person who approves non-trivial changes (I think "IETF Chair" fits here well), have a "last modified" date on it, and update it as needed. If there is consensus in the community to do this, I'm happy to take on the HTMLizing and skip the RFCizing for this round. --Paul Hoffman
