"Adult supervision"

[Charlie Perkins]

Hello Keith,

Keith Moore wrote:

>life is too short.  because generally, we're not talking about an explanation, we're talking about an extended debate.
>
>now I'll grant that probably what should happen is that after about the 4th time you find yourself explaining something you write up a web page (NOT an RFC) and update it as necessary, and subsequently point people to that web page.
>
That would be better than nothing.  However, I guess you mean that the 
AD doesn't
have time to make go through the process of making the explanation official.

Nevertheless, I suggest that the explanation SHOULD be available as an RFC.
If it's important enough to kill working group efforts, and if 12 people 
who care
enough to find out all didn't understand, then the AD should just do it. 
 Otherwise,
it gets to the point that undocumented criteria from authoritarian 
figures are more
important than the efforts of dozens of people who HAVE documented their
efforts.

This is wrong.

Regards,
Charlie P.


>
>  
>
>>>Should IESG members really have to debate with each
>>>document author or working group chair (for instance) whether it's okay to
>>>assume that a device or server will only be accessible from a local,
>>>trusted network and that therefore no authentication is needed?
>>>      
>>>
>>The IESG shouldn't have to debate, no, but they should offer 
>>constructive criticism and instruction in each case. 
>>    
>>
>
>it doesn't scale.  what we need to find is a better way to teach people than
>having to tutor them one at a time.
>
>Keith
>  
>