On 13/05/2016 15:26, François Laupretre wrote [not in quite this order,
I hope I haven't changed the meaning by grouping your sentences
differently]:
> Le 13/05/2016 à 15:30, Rowan Collins a écrit :
>> If somebody adds something that is genuinely irrelevant (e.g. based on a
>> simple misunderstanding of the RFC) then somebody else (*anyobdy* else)
>> could remove it.
>
> What does 'genuinely irrelevant' mean ?
> Will you accept that someone deletes your comment because he finds it
> 'genuinely irrelevant' ? Of course not.
No, I think deleting points would be very rare, that's why I gave a
strongly qualified definition of "genuinely irrelevant". You were the
one that raised the notion of "irrelevant" comments, what definition did
*you* have in mind?
However, I *would* expect people to edit the wording of a point I added
if it wasn't clear, or if it could be put more succinctly.
> Maybe I am not candid enough but do you imagine what it could become on
> a controversial RFC like STH ?So, we'll end up with a system
> where anybody can write anything and nothing can be removed. IMHO, we
> touch the limit of what can be done with a bare wiki.
Actually, given the volume of discussion on STH, I would have welcomed
an attempt to summarise the main points that had been raised, because I
simply didn't have time to read all the mails on the subject, and had to
give up trying.
And yes, such a summary would have been large (maybe in that case a
sub-page would work better than a section, as Davey suggests), but think
of it as proportional to the amount of mail discussion. If the archive
of the mailing list threads covers 100 pages of A4, a summary covering
one page of A4 is still an incredibly useful resource.
I mentioned in a previous message encouraging links to list archives. In
my mind, these sections should not attempt to *persuade* the reader, or
to demonstrate the importance of a particular point, they should attempt
to *inform* the reader that a point has been raised.
> Another way to solve this need would be to authorize voting as soon as
> discussion starts and allow an explanation comment to be associated with
> each vote. People could modify their vote and the associated comment
> while discussion runs, and it would be easy at any time to get a
> snapshot of the current trend and a resume of the raised arguments.
This makes it all too personal, in my opinion. As I said before, I think
we need to encourage the view that RFCs are a collaborative process, not
an adversarial one, and "I intend to vote against because of X" is very
different from "I like this, but one downside I see is X".
The points being discussed might be addressed in future edits of the
main RFC text, or they might be tradeoffs that are need considering, but
everybody voting decides are worth it on balance. Somebody might edit
acting as "Devil's Advocate", summarising points they don't necessarily
agree with, but have seen expressed.
When somebody comes to vote, the "Discussion Summary" (possible better
name for the section / sub-page?) would prompt them to consider the
points that had been raised.
Regards,
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
