RE: [Solutions] Document Process Improvement WG

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

Spencer,

Would you like to re-work your comments below into a proposal?  That
could, then, be something useful to discuss.

thanks,
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer@mcsr-labs.org]
> Sent: 19 June, 2003 14:28
> To: IETF Quality Mailing List
> Subject: Fw: [Solutions] Document Process Improvement WG
> 
> 
> Harald suggested that this might be coach material - just in 
> case there's a
> single person on ietf-quality that's not on solutions...
> 
> Spencer
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
> To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>; 
> <solutions@alvestrand.no>
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [Solutions] Document Process Improvement WG
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > --On onsdag, juni 18, 2003 20:59:40 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
> > <spencer@mcsr-labs.org> wrote:
> >
> > > OK, not sure if this is the right place to start a 
> conversation (is
> > > Solutions a general place for grass-roots efforts to 
> form?), but - I'm
> > > thinking about some mechanical problems with documents, 
> none of which
> are
> > > earth-shaking, but certainly don't make it any EASIER to 
> figure out
> what's
> > > going on around here.
> >
> > seems like it could be input to the COACH BOF....?
> > agenda is http://www.ietf.org/ietf/03jul/coach.txt - but it can be
> > changed....
> >
> > > Things we've talked about on the Problem Statement
> > > mailing list include:
> > >
> > > - Figuring out what the current state of a finished 
> specification is
> > > (after all the obsoletes, updates, applicability 
> statements, advice to
> > > developers, etc.)
> > >
> > > - Tracking changes between revisions (yeah, I know, 
> everyone stores
> > > multiple versions of their favorite drafts and runs some flavor of
> wdiff,
> > > that's a reasonable expectation for newcomers...)
> > >
> > > - Referring to "the latest draft" in URLs (I was laughing 
> with Dave
> > > Crocker tonight because SIR-00 has already been deleted from the
> > > repository - no way for Dave to point to "the latest 
> version" in the SIR
> > > home page. Great, huh? This is a problem W3C solved a 
> while ago ("Cool
> > > URLs Don't Change")...)
> >
> > and Internet-Drafts are not an archival series, and other 
> great myths of
> > the Internet?
> > most WGs with active drafts seem to solve this by storing 
> "the latest
> > draft" on their own site, often with updates that haven't 
> been made public
> > yet, creating its own set of problems....
> >
> > > Is there any interest in a BoF/Bar BoF on this topic in 
> Vienna? Or have
> we
> > > already moved past this? It doesn't seem to be exactly 
> what Margaret was
> > > asking about when she started this thread (hers was more
> > > producer-oriented, mine is more consumer-oriented) - is 
> it related?
> >
> > it's a problem, it impacts quality of work, we should talk about it!
> >
> 
> 
>