Please see my comments below, inline...
Thanks.
Le lundi 20 février 2023, Leo Vegoda via db-wg <
db-wg@ripe.net> a écrit :
> [...]
>
> With clear explanations sent to all resource holders and/or maintainers of
> the resource objects, I think we could get this message out there.
Setting semantics aside... I don't know whether changing definitions —
and adding a missing definition is a de facto change — would improve
things or make them worse.
Hi Leo,
Thanks for your email, brother.
...imho! it should be obvious that no one know :-/
However, i think we could first separate two goals:
G1. Documentation improvement
G2. Behaviour improvement
What research do we have to support the
position that it would be an improvement?
...while proceeding, as suggested above, i think we
would not, absolutely, need a research in order to
choose a common/consensual direction.
For G1. we could simply answer the following questions:
target="DB documentation"
Q1.1 Do we need to improve $target?
Q1.2 Do we want to do it?
Q1.3 Can we obviously expect to succeed?
...imho!
Yes! (Q1.1) | Maybe! (Q1.2) | Yes! (Q.1.3)
For G2. we could simply answer the following questions:
target="user/admin behaviour"
Q2.1=Q1.1
Q2.2=Q1.2
Q2.3=Q1.3
...imho!
Yes! (Q2.1) | Maybe! (Q2.2) | No! (Q2.3)
If you try to follow my reasoning; then you might
conclude that "influencing the average behaviour"
is a task that the outcomes/results are too difficult
to predict.
In general, the result would stay as bad as it's
actually (20 years after)...
...but, imho, i couldn't recommend to a book writer
to stop writing useful books; simply because there
is clear evidences that "people do not actually like
to read, as they prefer to watch videos".
Time to read is different than time to write...a book
can wait its readers & meet them after a long time.
:-)
Shalom,
--sb.
Kind regards,
Leo
[...]