Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] Change in process going forward

From: Heather Flanagan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:47:16 +0700

Hola a todos!

First, I want to thank all 33 people on this list for subscribing and 
observing the discussions regarding the issues between the various 
format specifications and the implementations of those specs. The 
current process has the tools developer, Henrik, posting batches of 
issues to the list (batches so the list isn't flooded with too much to 
discuss at once) and members of the list chiming in on the proposed 
changes. I've been chiming in, after about a week, to call consensus or 
make a decision so the issues can be closed out and development move on. 
This level of engagement in helping update the -bis document is actually 
outside the scope of the tools development contract, and has 
significantly delayed completing the formatter tools.

This process needs to change, and at this point I've asked Henrik to 
finish the formatters to the best of his ability, and to document where 
he has diverged from the specs. The -bis documents still need to happen, 
but we're going to push the updates of those out until we have a bit 
more experience with the running code. At that point we can decide which 
changes made in the code should be reflected in the specs, as well as 
what needs to be revised in the code itself to match the original 
requirements.

Your input and feedback during testing and rollout are still absolutely 
critical, so please stay tuned and involved as we get this project from 
an idea six years in the making into something we see in production.

-Heather

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 08:08:16 +0100

On 2018-11-07 05:47, Heather Flanagan wrote:
 > ...

...and the best way to do this wouldn't be to update those specs?

If the outcome of this are a RFC 7991 which only partly reflects
reality, and a -bis document that is abandoned, this would be really
disappointing.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Heather Flanagan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:16:51 +0700

> On Nov 7, 2018, at 14:08, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Hi Julian,

The -bis process isn’t being abandoned, it’s being postponed. It has to happen, but I’m going for separating the drafting from the initial development so we can get the development done sooner rather than later.

-Heather

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 08:22:51 +0100

> The -bis process isn’t being abandoned, it’s being postponed. It has to happen, but I’m going for separating the drafting from the initial development so we can get the development done sooner rath…

Well, the difference is timing.

I don't see how having a separate document that describes the
differences from the spec is better than updating the spec.

We have seen no activity on the specs for ~2 years, and now that we
finally resumed work it's essentially too late to do it properly?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Heather Flanagan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:41:00 +0700

> On Nov 7, 2018, at 14:22, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Well, as you say, the difference is timing. The process we’re following that ties development extremely tightly to the -bis documents is taking too long. I’m trying to speed up the timing of publishing RFCs in the new format, and accepting that the cost to do that is the delay of those -bis documents. 

> finally resumed work it's essentially too late to do it properly?

Difference of opinion about what it means to “do it properly.”

-Heather

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 08:59:29 +0100

> Well, as you say, the difference is timing. The process we’re following that ties development extremely tightly to the -bis documents is taking too long. I’m trying to speed up the timing of publis…

That makes it sound that the real difference is that you want to 
shortcut discussions so that Henrik can proceed faster.

I'm not too happy with that, but even if I was: why can't Henrik edit 
the -bis documents instead of documenting the changes somewhere else? Or 
a volunteer?

> Difference of opinion about what it means to “do it properly.”

We had a really slow and time-consuming process, and halted it for two 
years (for reasons very unclear to me). Now that it was restarted, we 
essentially abandon it again.

That's what *I* consider "not properly".

Best regards, Julian