Hi Stephen,
I think it is great idea, I hope it does not die, we need fast-tracks,
without delays, however, giving a fixed time limit for WG feedback and
WG discussion is important (suggested 6 months), because discussions
about running code should not be ignored. The draft seems to not give
chance to WG to make a formal decision on its adopted work, why you
put the chair to decide for WG of taking the fast track?
AB
----
Hi all,
I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
that's fine, it can die.
The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't
be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no
"official" status whatsoever.
Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome.
Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this
list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible,
this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list.
Regards,
Stephen.
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft