Re: new stuff in draft edits

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> I just don't think we will every finish if we have to review every single
> little change on the list before it is made. I would rather assume that the
> editor of a document can mostly get it right, then fix what they get wrong
> instead of assuming that they will get it all wrong.
> 
> We call these things drafts because they are a draft for the WG to review,
> comment on, and fix. We call the folks writing them an author because they
> are taking their best stab at coming up with a draft that the WG can form
> consensus around. Now when it is a WG drafts, such as this one, the author
> does need to reflect the things WG agreed to into the document because in
> the end it will not move forward without WG consensus. If the author of a
> working group document is maliciously failing to put in the things the WG
> has agreed to, I will find a new author for the document. However, lets not
> confuse this with the author trying to find some draft text that we can all
> agree to and then having the WG help refine that text until it is something
> we can all live with.
> 
> A natural difficulty with this is that it is non trivial to see all the
> change to a document. I really don't know any way to solve this other than
> diff tools. It good to catch the major diffs in the changes section of the
> document but it's unreasonable to get all the trivial ones. The changes
> being made to this document are small enough and local enough that it is not
> that hard to catch them with diff.
> 
> I'm saying this poorly - it's hard to describe the difference between
> reasonable changes and an author being way off in left field and introducing
> garbage that the WG would never agree to.
> 
> I really like us to focus on what changes to we have to make to draft to get
> it to the point it is all something we can live with. I hope the bugs are a
> way of focusing on these issues.
> 
> Cullen
> 
> PS. Consider this email a draft :-) I (and we) might have to refine it a few
> times before I get it right.

OK,

a few questions:

- how many people have been reviewing each of these drafts?

- can anybody say with confidence what has changed since RFC2518?

- does any server implementor think that (s)he has a compliant 
implementation of what's in?


The answers we *should* be getting are:

-> the majority of the WG members

-> see above

-> most of the active implementors of servers


However I'm pretty sure the actual situation is different, and I think 
this is caused by the way how the editorial process has been working in 
the past.

The fact that we only have little participation nowadays even makes it 
more important that those who want to contribute it can do that 
effectively. Right now, I don't have the impression that the time I have 
spent in the past years has been effective at all.


Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 05:22:42 UTC