Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Thu May 8 20:03:27 CEST 2014
On 8 May 2014, at 18:32, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote: > This specific case is not a very complicated one, just a case of bad language mostly. I don't see why we should publish a document with a known language bug in it. It's a bit more than a language bug Sander and there's no consensus (yet) on what text should replace it. That text has been in RIPE500 for years. Nobody complained. Or cared. It's not caused any problems. So leave it alone for now IMO. There's a broken PDP that needs fixing. I hope we can put out that fire without having a long discussion about what colour the fire engine should be or who gets to repaint it. > I wouldn't have a problem with a native English speaker fixing these little things when publishing the new version as a RIPE document. As long as it is just language fixes we shouldn't waste any time on them. I am not sure it's a good idea to make "little fixes" like that on the fly. Yes, I know this sort of contradicts my healthy disregard for process and preference for pragmatic solutions. I fear if we re-open the revised document for further changes or little fixes, the discussions will terminate some time after the next Ice Age. YMMV.