Harald,
In any event, we can distinguish documents that newly come up to their
2-year limit, versus dusting out the closet of those that already hit 2
years, before this.
HTA> I'd like to tackle both - it seems silly to have all this garbage
My comment did not suggest that older Proposed documents be ignored.
What I said was that they can be dealt with differently from the "steady
state" handling required to handle new documents, as they come to their
time limit.
For doing project planning, there is a very big difference between
on-going requirements and start-up requirements. Both urgency and
resource allocation can be quite different.
HTA> If we have the consensus of the community that we SHOULD reclassify the
HTA> documents, then the dusting out is "just work".
The amount of work required can affect people's willingness to support
doing a project. Overestimating can make the task seem more daunting
than necessary and thereby reduce support. Underestimating can set
unrealistic expectation and thereby cause community frustration later.
For that matter, a community in crisis about timeliness, productivity,
accountability and funding might wonder how a particular proposal
affects any of these urgent problems, especially when the community is
severely resource limited.
There are many good proposals, but scarce resources mandates setting
priorities.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>