Hi -
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer(_at_)mcsr-labs(_dot_)org>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection)
I spent more time trying to capture what people were saying at the
plenary than trying to figure out who said what, but I would like to
figure out who said
[06:43:24] <anewton> too much time needed to take something out there
and take it back to historic.
[06:43:44] <anewton> suggests steps for things to automatically go
historic.
[06:43:48] <anewton> harald.
[06:43:55] --- AWGY has joined
[06:44:20] <anewton> perhaps have someone else beside IESG do leg
work.
[06:44:36] <anewton> ??.
on Thursday night - sound familiar to anyone? The last name mentioned
in the logs was John Loughney, then Harald replied, and then SOMEONE
said "too much time needed..." I'd love to find who who said this.
...
I made the comment that I thought we should apply RFC 2026 and force
things to either advance or go historic. Our AD advised us in one case
that if our WG wanted one of its RFCs to go historic, we had to write
another RFC explaining why. The procedure in RFC 2026 section 6.2
(last paragraph) seems very reasonable, and I like Harald's suggested
approach to cleaning up the cruft.
Randy