Editor's policy on notes about changes

Vint Cerf vint at google.com
Mon Jul 28 05:44:48 CEST 2008


with the exception of my question regarding your statement in
item (2) (previous message), I think these suggestions are
beneficial and will move us towards conclusions more effectively.


On Jul 27, 2008, at 11:39 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> Hi.
> I've been thinking about lists of changes and how I'm handling
> them.  I want to make some changes in the hope or getting faster
> progress.  They are outlined below.  Vint obviously gets to
> overrule me on this if he likes, but, until he does, this is
> going to be it, at least for the two documents I'm holding the
> pen on at present.
> This process has been slow for several reasons.  One, obviously,
> been that the list has been too quiet except for long threads on
> very small issues (e.g., Frank, Eric, and I agree about the
> "LDH-label" model to a first order approximation, but are having
> trouble with terminology and some document integration
> inconsistencies in the text.   But the other is that I'm very
> reluctant to implement a change request for which the only thing
> I receive is approximately "change this to that" and/or "X is
> wrong" unless it is either obviously trivial (e.g., most simple
> editorial errors or corrections) or something that I understand
> well and have enough confidence about to make the change and
> risk having to change it back.   So I'd like to make two
> requests of those suggesting changes and one for everyone else:
>  (1) Separate the editorial and/or obvious from the changes that
> might be debatable.  I don't care whether that is grouped and
> separated within a single note or separate notes and, if the
> latter, whether the editorial ones are sent to the list or just
> to me.
>  (2) For the more complex, substantive, or debatable issues,
> please try to explain why you disagree with what is there rather
> than just indicating what change you think should be made.  Also
> note that, if a particular comment introduces a long thread on
> which the comments or suggestions don't appear to be consistent,
> I'm likely to conclude that I should make changes until there is
> clear convergence or Vint tells me that he sees consensus, even
> if the threads are generated mostly by people repeating or
> replying to themselves.
> (3) For those more substantive issues, we really need
> discussion.  If I see a possibly-controversial change requested
> by one person with no response, I'm likely to sit on it until
> I'm convinced that the group has general agreement (I'm willing
> to change text and then change it back if needed, but I don't
> like the idea).  If I see agreement on the list from people who
> typically represent different perspectives, I'm likely to assume
> that others are silent because they agree too and make the
> change.  It is obvious to me that different clusters of us look
> at the IDN issues (and the DNS ones) from different
> perspectives, so this is not an area in which as simple "+1"
> from someone whose positions are usually aligned with the author
> of the original suggestion is going to carry much weight
> (disagreement would).    But, in general, "no discussion" on an
> issue that I believe is controversial is likely to equate to "no
> change until and unless Vint generates a consensus call".
> I hope that helps and is generally agreeable.   If not, I hope
> we can discuss it today or tomorrow.
>        john
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

More information about the Idna-update mailing list