I wasn't discussing the point about whether there should be a process change or
not. Rather, I don't think any process, existing or new, of changing the
document type can be done in less than 12 months, and I don't think that such
change in status will match any market needs for extra identification of active
RFCs worthy of implementation.
Therefore essentially in many respects this discussion will achieve nothing.
Regards
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 21 April 2012 01:38
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments
On 4/20/12 4:28 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
Changing something from experimental to proposed standard in a
process that will probably take 12 months will be unlikely change the
number of people implementing and deploying an RFC.
I'm going to take the liberty of mentioning that I spoke with Ron
earlier today about this. Basically what he's asking is that there
be no process changes, and, I think, no policy changes, just
that IESG members should be mindful about how to phase experimental
stuff out when it's flopped.
Personally, I think he's correct about both cruft and mindfulness
and suspect that probably nearly everybody agrees with what he's
saying, anyway, but unfortunately it was presented in a form that
made it look like More Process.
Melinda