On 2012-04-19 23:27, Ronald Bonica wrote:
...
I think that this is a case-by-case judgment call. In some cases (e.g., RFC
1475), the experiment is clearly over. IMO, allowing RFC 1475 to retain
EXPERIMENTAL status detracts from the credibility of current experiments
that share the label.
I agree that it is case by case, so I don't really see the value in the
IESG statement. If it's appropriate to write an experiment-terminating
RFC, do so; if it's inappropriate, don't bother. That doesn't need
any new legislation.
While I agree 100% that this needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis, I
also think that it's an issue that always needs to be addressed when an
experiment ends. So some sort of statement saying that the handling of any
allocations associated with the experiment must be resolved when the experiment
ends might be appropriate. Or not - this could just be something to add to some
checklist somewhere. (We do have checklists for this sort of thing, right?)
Ned