Harald Alvestrand wrote:
9/10 of all drafts are trashed by the quite effective mechanism
of waiting 6 months... no need for dramatic action.....
Depends, that 3710-thingy was quite spicy, and all I know about
"cancels" in the tools.ietf.org archive is that it's possible.
- supporters are distinct human beings
WP:SOCK is okay...
- supporters are willing to offer proof of identity to a
secretariat function of the IETF
...difficult, it reminds me of Usenet CSVs. What do you have
in mind, a phone number offered for a verification call ? They
would need to support different plausibility checks wrt WP:SOCK
I might even toss in "has contributed to at least one IETF
mailing list he's subscribed to".
That's simpler.
The important point (to me) would be to shift appealants from
a mode of "I am the lone voice of reason - if I am allowed to
carry my arguments forward in front of a higher body, Truth
and Justice will prevail" to a mode where appealants think
"I need to check with a few other people that I'm right before
progressing - perhaps my arguments are not compelling, or
perhaps I even might be wrong".
It may cause reasonable people who are upset to think twice,
MAY as in "maybe not" ;-) Maybe it's simpler today if folks
find the "procdoc-roadmap" with some bloody details not covered
by the new Tao.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf